Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

Employment (Dundee)

Mr. George Thomson: I beg to present a petition to Parliament from 45,806 citizens of the City of Dundee.
The petition sheweth
That grave unemployment has existed in the City of Dundee for some time and has been worsened by the further contraction of the jute industry and by the substantial reduction in the work force of the National Cash Register Company (Manufacturing) Limited who are one of the principal employers in the City in consequence whereof unemployment among male insured workers in the City is now approaching the alarming rate of 10 per cent.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will with due urgency take all such measures as may be necessary and expedient to encourage the retention and expansion of existing industries within the City and to stimulate the establishment of new industries therein.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray &amp;c.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Currency Parities (Group of Ten)

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations about the exchange level of the £ sterling he intends to make to Mr. Connally at the meeting of the Group of Ten in Rome.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what

action he is proposing to take with the other members of the Group of Ten to find a satisfactory solution to the current international parity instability, following the recent actions of the United States of America; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress being made by the countries of the Group of Ten and the United States of America in resolving the monetary crisis, following the measures introduced by President Nixon in August this year.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Anthony Barber): The Group of Ten will meet in Rome on 30th November and 1st December. The aim of a realignment of parities which will bring an end to recent trade restrictions is, I believe, generally shared. The Government's policy is to work for a realignment which is realistic and sustainable, both generally and in relation to the sterling parity.

Mr. Baker: Has the Chancellor seen the recent statement by Mr. Connally that it is in the interests of America for the present uncertainty to continue? That is not in the interests of Western Europe. So, at the meeting in Rome, will he take a personal initiative and perhaps concentrate on persuading the Americans, as this seems to be the chink in the armour, to revalue the dollar price of gold?

Mr. Barber: I hope and believe that the United States Administration would like to have a settlement of the variety of problems which now confront us following upon the announcement by the President of the United States on 15th August.
In answer to my hon. Friend's second request, I am quite convinced that a realignment will be easier to achieve if there is a change in the price of gold.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend believe that we should support the American attempt to demonetise gold? Does he agree that if we do not get a speedy solution to this parity crisis we may end up with a protectionist trade war throughout the West?

Mr. Barber: If we do not get a reasonably early settlement of the problems


which now confront us, I believe that there is a real danger that some countries will consider taking action which could result in a trade war of one kind or another.
Regarding the demonetisation of gold, I have already put forward in some detail my own proposals for the longer-term solution, with the object of establishing a neutral reserve asset. The particular one which I have suggested, and which I believe commands considerable support, is the use of S.D.R.s.

Mr. Cronin: Will the right hon. Gentleman point out to the United States Administration in simple terms that their unsupportable arrogance in refusing to devalue the dollar endangers not only world monetary stability but their own financial interests?

Mr. Barber: I have my own views on this matter. I do not wish to say anything before the meeting in Rome which would prejudice a happy outcome.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Before my right hon. Friend abandons the regulatory advantages of a floating £, will he pause to reflect whether the Bretton Woods system of fixed parities has not been as great a disaster to the world as was the return to gold at pre-war parity in the 1920s?

Mr. Barber: I should point out to my right hon. Friend that what is happening now in foreign exchange markets is not free floating or, indeed, anything like it. I do not believe that completely clean floating is practicable. Indeed, I am not sure that it is being practised anywhere. I think that my right hon. Friend will agree that it would expose any economy to sudden and severe shocks as changes in the price of foreign exchange affected the domestic price level. Also, large speculative capital flows could result in exchange rates entirely unwarranted by the domestic economic situation. I believe, with most, if not all, in the Group of Ten, that a return to a realistic pattern of parities is in the best interests of ourselves and the world.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that floating the £ is about the only sensible policy in the economic field which the Government have so far pursued, and that to ditch it at this stage would be a total disaster?

Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that fear of going back to fixed parity is undermining investment confidence in this country?

Mr. Barber: I disagree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. If one discusses this matter with business men and with others who take decisions, one learns that the uncertainty created by the present situation is one reason for the lack of investment which we are experiencing.

Mr. Powell: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the only realignment of currencies which can be lasting and satisfactory is one which is continuously worked out by a free market, and that what is impeding a free market now is the attempt of countries, in expectation of a refixing of parities, to jockey for a favourable position?

Mr. Barber: If we lived in a completely pure and theoretical world I should be somewhat inclined to agree with my right hon. Friend, but I can only tell him that in my honest judgment, having discussed this matter with other Ministers of Finance, I do not believe that completely clean or pure floating is practicable.

European Economic Community

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the effect on the wages and salaries level of British industry of entry into the Common Market; and what assessment he has made of the impact of this on industrial costs.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): In the short run no significant change that I can foresee. In the long run I am confident that real wages will be substantially increased. Industrial costs should remain competitive.

Mrs. Short: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if prices increase, as everybody imagines they will, if we go into the Common Market, there will be no wage and salary increases to meet the increase, which is what is said in the White Paper? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that womens' wages are far from reaching equality with mens' wages, and is he therefore saying that men and women in industry will have to bear the full brunt of entry into the


Common Market with no help from the Government?

Mr. Macmillan: I am saying nothing of the sort. The White Paper made it quite clear that the increase in food prices following entry would be marginal. There will also be a decrease in the price of some manufactures. I should not expect such marginal changes to have any significant effect on wage claims. The whole experience of the Community over a period is that real wages there have been rising faster than in the United Kingdom.

Value-added Tax

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the number of additional civil servants necessary to administer the proposed value-added tax.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I have nothing to add to the answer given to my hon. Friend, the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) on 10th November.—[Vol. 825, c. 189.]

Mr. Hamilton: But as that reply was singularly uninformative, will the hon. Gentleman now state whether the Government have come to any kind of estimate on this, in view of the fact that about two years ago the N.E.D.C. gave an estimate of 6,000? Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there will be a net increase at all in the number of civil servants, and whether the Daily Telegraph this morning was right in its estimate of about 7,000?

Mr. Macmillan: It is not possible to give any meaningful estimate of numbers until decisions are made on the scope and coverage of V.A.T. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there will be offsets from not having to administer various other measures which are being abolished, such as S.E.T., purchase tax, and so on.

Sir G. Nabarro: While endorsing what my hon. Friend said about the scope of the tax, may I ask him to bear in mind that the long period which will elapse between now and next April, when final decisions are taken on this form of tax and its scope, is likely to cause all wholesalers and retailers to run down their stocks, all of which is aggravating the unemployment situation by the

diminution of demand for manufactures? Will my hon. Friend therefore make his statement about the scope of the tax much earlier than next April?

Mr. Macmillan: That is an entirely different matter from that of the number of civil servants required to administer the tax, but I have noted what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the liability to value-added tax of goods held in stock at the time it comes into force.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mrs. Doris Fisher) and my hon. Friend, the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) on 26th October.—[Vol. 823, c. 281.]

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Before people begin running down stocks and therefore creating unemployment, may we take it that there is an assurance that such goods will not be subject to both purchase tax and V.A.T.?

Mr. Jenkin: A large number of representations have been made both to the Customs and Excise and to Treasury Ministers on this subject. I would prefer to say no more at this stage. It would be wrong to anticipate my right hon. Friend's decision.

Mr. Farr: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will, when purchase tax is ended, make arrangements to ensure that foodstuffs are zero rated for value-added tax, especially including potato crisps and chocolate-coated biscuits.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I would refer my hon. Friend to my hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) on 16th November.—[Vol. 826, c. 81–2.]

Mr. Farr: Is my hon. Friend aware that only a very few food products attract purchase tax and that they are mostly consumed either by the very young or by the very old? When purchase tax comes to an end, will the Minister look at this matter again with a view to having a zero rate on food products?

Mr. Macmillan: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I am unable to add to what my right hon. Friend has said several times, namely, that food will be relieved of value-added tax except perhaps some items which are subject to purchase tax. We are not yet ready to announce the method or scope of the relief.

Mr. Taverne: But surely there is no earthly reason at all why the Government should not state now whether food will be zero rated or exempted?

Mr. Macmillan: It would be very bad practice to start giving the scope and method of coverage of value-added tax item by item. My right hon. Friend will announce the whole lot in due course.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a further statement on the use of computers in the administration of a value-added tax.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The Answer given to the hon. Member on 27th July referred to the installation of the I.C.L. system 4/72 computer, in preparation for this an I.C.L. system 4/50 computer has been installed in Southend for Customs and Excise to carry out programming tests and trials.—[Vol. 822, c. 199–200.]

Mr. Huckfield: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that unless he gives more information about computer developments than this there is serious risk that the computer software will not be available? Is he further aware that this will have the direct consequence that V.A.T., in addition to being socially regressive, administratively could be a total fiasco?

Mr. Macmillan: Customs and Excise are carrying out their programming tests and trials, and they have to decide not only on the hardware but on the software required.

Mortgages (Tax Relief)

Mr. Hardy: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many persons are currently receiving tax allowance in respect of mortgages of their own residences, where such mortgages are of an amount over £10,000 and below, £25,000, or over £25,000, respectively.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The statistics on which to base estimates are not available, but the number in each category is small.

Mr. Hardy: Is it not disgraceful that this currently relevant information is not available? Is it not true to say that the purchasers of some of the expensive houses now changing hands will receive more in a week by way of tax relief on their mortgage interest than the tenant of the most heavily subsidised council house receives in a year? Will the Treasury reconsider this matter to make sure that while a mortgage of up to £5,000 may be properly allowed for against tax, this massive contribution to the well-heeled is reduced?

Mr. Jenkin: I disagree with almost every word of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I think that when he bears in mind that only about 5 per cent. of the total sum involved in reliefs for mortgage interest goes to surtax payers he will realise that his remarks are extravagant.

Mr. Taverne: Is there not total disparity of treatment between the majority of council house tenants who do not have the advantage of acquiring a capital asset, and from whom subsidies are being withdrawn, and those who are buying their homes on a mortgage, acquiring a capital asset and being subsidised by other taxpayers?

Mr. Jenkin: It is a complete abuse of the English language to describe relief from taxation as a subsidy. Relief for any form of loan interest is justified on the ground that a man pays tax on the income from his assets, with relief for the payment in respect of his liabilities.

Mr. Allaun: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer approximately what income tax and surtax relief is secured weekly by a single house purchaser with a total income of £10,000 per annum, wholly unearned, taking out a £30,000 mortgage on a house at 8 per cent. interest; how this compares with the average weekly subsidy on council houses; and if he will seek to introduce a ceiling on the size of mortgages ranking for such a subsidy.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The figure for which the hon. Gentleman asks depends on the term of the mortgage,


and on the lapse of time since it was granted. In any case there would be no valid comparison between such a figure and the average subsidy on council houses. I have no statement to make on the last part of the Question.

Mr. Allaun: Since the Minister is reluctant to give this figure, may I give it to him? It is approximately—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Is it not a tax handout of approximately £1,600 a year at the marginal rate, or £32 a week, and does not this compare rather favourably with the council tenant, who gets 90p a week on average, including the rate subsidy? Therefore, while I do not want to hit the ordinary house purchaser, should there not at least be a ceiling on the amount of his mortgage for tax relief purposes? If there is not a ceiling, or in any case, is it not utterly unfair to slash the subsidy on the council tenant and yet to allow subsidies at this level?

Mr. Macmillan: There is no question of this allowance being a subsidy. Considered at the level to which the Question is directed, it is more comparable with relief on interest payments on debt rather than with a mortgage. The figure which the hon. Gentleman quoted, of some £30-odd a week, is totally meaningless without giving any term for the mortgage. In certain circumstances, that figure could be as low as £3 a week.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This appears to be a matter for debate rather than for question and answer. Sir Derek Walker-Smith, next Question.

Hon. Members: Oh!

£ Sterling (Purchasing Power)

Mr. William Price: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much, in percentage terms, the £ sterling declined in value during 1970.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Between December, 1969, and December, 1970, the purchasing power of the £ sterling fell by 7·3 per cent., on the basis of the change in the General Index of Retail Prices.

Mr. Price: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a funny thing appears to have happened to that Question on its way to the printers' room, and that I have ended up with the wrong year? Is he

nevertheless aware that, as a result of deliberate Government policy, millions of people are facing the worst Christmas in their lifetime? Does he not understand that most of them have given up any hope of any improvement under this Government, and that the best present he could give them this Christmas is the departure of the whole shower opposite?

Mr. Jenkin: I think it will be true to say that a funny thing happened to that supplementary, too. On the basis of the alternative form of the retail price index, excluding the effects of the seasonal food movement, and that accounts for only about 5 per cent. in the retail price index, I think that the hon. Gentleman may be interested in the following figures: percentage changes on six months earlier at an annual rate were—May, 1971, 11·3; June, 1971, 11·1; July, 10·8; August, 10·1; September, 9·4; and October, 6·7. That is a record of success.

Mr. Lipton: Would it not be true to say that since the present Government returned to power the people of this country have never been had so good?

Occupational Pensions Schemes

Mr. Hall-Davis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the revenue rules for occupational pension schemes so as to enable increased pension provision to be made for older employees declared redundant.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The Revenue rules for occupational pension schemes already permit proportionate pension benefits to be paid to an employee who retires for any reason up to 10 years before the normal retirement date. Additional payments to an employee by way of compensation for redundancy ought to be kept separate from schemes designed to provide retirement benefits.

Mr. Hall-Davis: But does my hon. Friend realise that it is not possible to give an older man who is declared redundant a full two-thirds pension unless he has 40 years' service, whereas a man retiring on the normal retirement date, under the rules of the schemes, can be given a two-thirds pension after 20 years' service and under the welcome new code after 10 years' service, even though he may be younger than the man declared redundant?

Mr. Macmillan: I thank my hon. Friend for what he said. I will look into the matter and get in touch with him.

Works of Art

Mr. Cormack: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider granting tax relief to individuals who purchase works of art with the intention of giving or bequeathing them to the nation.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Mr. Cormack: I thank my hon. Friend for that very unimaginative and disappointing reply. Would he look very carefully at the American system to see whether we can learn some lessons from across the Atlantic?

Mr. Jenkin: I assure my hon. Friend that we are studying a number of ways of fulfilling the pledge in our election manifesto to encourage the flow of funds to charities.

Brass Band Instruments

Mr. Skinner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now take steps substantially to reduce the level of taxation on brass band instruments.

Mr. Barber: No, Sir. I reduced all the rates of purchase tax by two-elevenths this summer.

Mr. Skinner: Well, that is a pity. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was going to blow his trumpet again. Is he aware that these bandsmen have been having a pretty rough time recently, leading all these working-class demonstrations against the Government's policies, resulting in all these expensive replacements? More seriously, if it is right for the Arts Council to hand over £30,000 to the National Youth Orchestra, why cannot a little recompense be given in the form of reduced taxation for working-class music?

Mr. Barber: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that those who blow these brass instruments have had a very rough time indeed. In 1964, the tax on their instruments was 25 per cent., in July, 1966 it was increased to 27 ½ per cent., in March, 1968 to 33 ⅓ per cent. and in November, 1968 to 36 ⅔ per cent. At

least we have made a start by reducing it to 30 per cent.

Reflation and Unemployment

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take further steps to augment his July measures for reflation of the economy and reduction of unemployment.

Mr. Douglas: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the increase in demand following the fiscal measures announced in July; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Barber: I would ask the House to await the debate which is to follow, when I shall be dealing with the general state of the economy, and in particular dealing with the problem of unemployment and the effect on demand of the measures which I announced in July and previously.

Mr. Douglas: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that the effect of his July measures, added to previous Budgetary statement, has been a massive level of unemployment—141,000 in Scotland—which has resulted today in representatives from local authorities from all over Scotland coming to the House to protest at the dastardly state of the Scottish economy? We shall not be satisfied unless he redresses the balance and in particular restores investment grants and does something about the regional employment premium.

Mr. Barber: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will follow the very sensible example of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) and await the debate, when I shall be able to deal with these questions more fully.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: While of course we shall await my right hon. Friend's statement with great interest, would he not agree, as a general philosophical proposition, that our experience in recent years has suggested that attempts to fine tune the economy, whether in one direction or the other, have almost invariably been disastrous or at least unfortunate in their medium-term results? Would he therefore resist the blandishments on this subject, whether from my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South


(Sir G. Nabarro) or the other side, from Clackmannan?

Mr. Barber: I note what my hon. Friend said, but my own inclination would be to await the debate.

Age Exemption Limits

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider a substantial increase in the age exemption limits, to help pensioners and those living on small fixed incomes when the new system of personal taxation is introduced.

Mr. Barber: I am very conscious of the difficulties which elderly people face as a result of the inflation of the past few years. The age exemption limit has been increased in respect of this year, 1971–72, and will be increased further in respect of next year, 1972–73. These increases were provided for in this year's Finance Act. I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Digby: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he accept the principle that elderly people living on private pensions or savings deserve special tax concessions, whatever the system?

Mr. Barber: It will be of some assurance to my hon. Friend when I say that the new system of personal taxation to which he refers has no particular relevance to the age exemption limits.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will my right hon. Friend give special consideration to those people who have been on sickness benefit, which is tax free, and who, on reaching retirement age, pass to a retirement pension which is taxable and therefore face a reduction in their already low standards of life?

Mr. Barber: I will consider what my right hon. Friend said.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: To save the right hon. Gentleman the trouble of answering Question 25, which we may not reach, may I ask him to bear in mind that pensioners regard the retirement pension—and always have regarded it—as sacred, something upon which the Inland Revenue should not get its hands? I am not blaming him for this: I am

indicating all successive Chancellors. Would he bear in mind the suggestion that, when the pension is thrown in with other income and is taxable, it should be taxed at a much lower rate than any other form of income?

Mr. Barber: That is a point of view, but it goes very much wider than this Question, which is concerned with age exemption limits and the new system of personal taxation.

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider, in the context of the old age tax relief, that widows and single women retirement pensioners have to wait five years before becoming eligible for a higher basic tax-free income; and, in view of the substantial rise in prices, if he will take steps to make age relief available at 60 years for all, in order to assist the low income groups of all ages.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Dame Irene Ward: Noting my suggestion is not any use at all—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must ask a question and not make an observation.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my hon. Friend please bear in mind, arising out of all the sympathetic answers with no action that have emanated from the Exchequer, that he can have a Green Paper from those of us who are interested in these groups? May we please have a meaningful discussion with all the Treasury Ministers to see whether we can remedy more of the injustices that need remedying?

Mr. Jenkin: I am certain that my hon. Friend would dislike me the more if I were to ignore the points she makes, and I have no intention of doing that. We are examining, and will always keep under continuous examination, the personal allowances. My hon. Friend is now asking for the age of 60 to be the qualifying age for everyone, men and women. We have taken note of her suggestion and I assure her that if she wishes to discuss the matter with either myself or my colleagues, we shall be only too pleased to meet her.

Inland Revenue (Tax Demands)

Sir D. Walker-Smith: asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the practice of the Inland Revenue of sending, only one month after receipt of initial demand, a final demand, containing a threat of distraint or proceedings in court, causes embarrassment and apprehension to persons who, due to absence, illness or other reason, have not been able to comply with the initial demand; and if he will review the situation.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: It must be very much the exception where neither the taxpayer nor someone acting on his behalf is able to contact the collector before a final demand is sent. If my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind, I should be happy to look into it.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Having regard to the possibility that in many cases this final demand is in fact the first notification actually received, not only because of illness or absence but possibly due to failures in postal delivery, will not my hon. Friend turn his undoubted ingenuity to trying to devise a form of words less peremptory and minatory?

Mr. Jenkin: I take the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend. The wording of the final notice has certainly been subject to several complaints. We are considering whether it can be modified without weakening its impact on that inevitable fraternity who always delay paying their tax until the bailiffs are at the door.

Purchase Tax

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider reducing purchase tax on filter devices which are available for cigarettes in order to reduce the nicotine and tar content.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: All the rates of purchase tax were reduced by a little over 18 per cent. in July; the state of medical knowledge does not suggest that a further special reduction for these articles would be justified.

Mr. Lewis: Is it not rather odd that the Government should place health warnings on cigarette packets yet retain a tax which makes more expensive

a safeguard against the smoking danger? If it can be proved medically that these are safeguards and useful, will my hon. Friend consider reducing this tax?

Mr. Jenkin: The second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is hypothetical. However, I remind him that earlier this year the Royal College of Physicians reported in its publication "Smoking and Health Now":
Too little is known at present about the medical significance of the many individual chemical components of the 'tar' and of the numerous compounds in the gaseous fraction of cigarette smoke to warrant publication of detailed analyses or advocating the use of special filters designed to eliminate particular gaseous fractions.

Sir G. Nabarro: A very good answer.

Negative Income Tax

Mr. Carter: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he is giving to the introduction of a negative form of income tax assessment.

Mr. Barber: We are continuing further studies.

Mr. Carter: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in view of the large number of individuals and families who are failing to take advantage of benefits of one kind or another, a negative form of income tax would go a long way not only to relieve poverty but to remove the stigma of the means test, which has been greatly increased under Conservative rule?

Mr. Barber: What the hon. Gentleman says only goes to show that this is an important and difficult problem. It is certainly not easy to find the right solution. Neither I nor my colleagues in the Treasury have ever pretended that it would be easy to find a solution quickly. Many people have been trying to evolve a form of negative income tax for many years, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are continuing with further studies.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: When are these studies likely to be completed? When they are, will my right hon. Friend consider publishing a Green Paper containing the various alternatives that the studies will show? Will he then set up a Select Committee to examine the specific proposals contained in that Green Paper,


the procedure used so successfully with corporation tax?

Mr. Barber: My hon. Friend will agree that I have always argued the merit of the Green Paper system. But I would not wish to anticipate the outcome of these studies, and I regret that I am unable to give him a meaningful idea of the time they are likely to take.

Rates and Taxes (Proportion of Income)

Mr. Pardoe: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate, from information available to him, the proportion of their gross income, excluding cash benefits, paid in all kinds of direct and indirect taxes and rates by an average family of husband and wife and two children, living on an income of £5,000 per year, on an average income for such a family, and on an income of £1,000 per year, respectively.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The 1969 Family Expenditure Survey showed that in that year rates and taxes took 33 per cent. of family income exclusive of benefits at £1,000 a year, and 35 per cent. at £1,760 a year, the average income for such families. The Survey did not give enough data about £5,000-a-year families for the comparable percentage to be calculated. Information for later years is not available.

Mr. Pardoe: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for those figures, may I ask him to accept that if the other figures were available to his Department they would show that far from being a progressive tax system ours is a regressive system? Is he aware that it has singularly failed to redistribute income in the ways that radicals would wish and that those with the lower incomes are paying a higher proportion in taxation than those in the middle and upper income brackets?

Mr. Jenkin: I would not accept that. It is totally unrealistic to leave out of the calculations the cash benefits and benefits in kind that are received. If the hon. Gentleman would like some other figures, he may care to know that for the family of the size mentioned in the Question with an original income of £600 a year, this would represent an increase of 56 per cent. At about £1,000 the

combined effect would be to decrease such a family's income by 4 per cent. and on £1,760 the effect would be to reduce it by 16 per cent. That seems to be a fair degree of redistribution.

Political Party Funds

Dr. Marshall: asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to prevent any flow of Exchequer revenue into political party funds, through tax allowances in respect of advertisements placed by business companies in any publication whose profits go to a political party.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The general rule is that expenditure is allowable only if it is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business. If the hon. Member has particular cases in mind, I will look at them.

Dr. Marshall: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him to examine a particular case which has been brought to my notice recently—namely, that of the "Mid-Yorkshire Businessmen's Diary", the profits of which go to the Conservative Party?

Mr. Jenkin: If there are profits, they are themselves taxed; but I will certainly look into the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Will the hon. Gentleman now answer the Question and not evade the issue? Is it not a fact that advertisements are placed in brochures at a price clearly out of line with the readership of those brochures? Will he look at the whole question of these expenses and advertisements to see whether they are wholly and exclusively incurred?

Mr. Jenkin: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is on a good point. It would be extremely difficult for local inspectors of taxes to weigh up the prices paid for all advertisements in all journals—[Interruption]—and I cannot believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite think that such an exercise would be easy. However, I will look into any particular cases that are brought to my attention.

Pensions (Taxation)

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to tax the retirement pension


at a lower rate, when it is assessed for tax purposes, than other earnings.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am afraid that I could not entertain the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. Davidson: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member, in a supplementary question to Question No. 12, announced that he was anticipating his supplementary question on this Question. However, I will allow him to ask it.

Mr. Davidson: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker: I did not think that you would allow me to do so. I cannot recall in detail the Financial Secretary's earlier reply, but will he bear in mind that pensioners very much resent their retirement pension being taxed at all; and that if he would at least go halfway by taxing the pension at a lower rate he would give some recognition to these natural and well-founded resentments?

Mr. Jenkin: My right hon. Friend has already referred to the age exemption relief, but perhaps I can tell the hon. Gentleman that for a married couple under 65 the threshold for tax is £598; for a couple over 65 it is £786, with marginal relief that goes right up to £1,112. These are the figures for 1971–72. They will be higher still next year.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is it not the case that if the retirement pension were made tax free it would be entirely regressive and would benefit most those with the largest gross incomes?

Mr. Jenkin: It would certainly help those below the tax threshold not at all.

Mr. Rost: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he is giving to the reduction of income tax liability for retirement pensions.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The aim of this Government is to reduce taxation on incomes generally.

Mr. Rost: I welcome that reply. Has my hon. Friend had time to study some of the letters he has received from me and some of my pensioner constituents giving examples of relatively high taxation on reasonably small incomes? Does he not agree that the present Government promote an incentive to self-provision,

and should we not now do more to provide incentives to self-provision following six years of the reverse?

Mr. Jenkin: It is certainly true, as I say in reply to many letters received from my hon. Friend and from other hon. and right hon. Members, that the rates of taxation in this country are high, and we aim to reduce them. We made a start—many people would say a very satisfactory start—in the Budget earlier this year.

Mr. Marks: Is the Financial Secretary aware that those who contribute to National Insurance pensions and who will contribute under the Government's new reserve scheme will pay tax on their pensions but will get no tax relief on their contributions? Is that not grossly unfair?

Mr. Jenkin: I would not necessarily accept that it is grossly unfair, but it does not lie in the mouths of hon. Members opposite to make those accusations because theirs was the Government who removed tax relief on National Insurance contributions. As for the reserve scheme, the weighting on the contributions as between employer and employee is towards the employer in order, at any rate in part, to make up for the fact that the employee's contribution will not qualify for tax relief.

Mr. Heffer: Does not the Financial Secretary agree that, apart from the general principle of taxation on retirement pensions, one of the problems is that every time there is a slight increase in their income, pensioners are not re-coded quickly enough and on many occasions find themselves on Code 1, which means that they have to pay higher taxation for a longer period than they ought to pay it? Will not the hon. Gentleman promise that this aspect will be looked into at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Jenkin: I am certainly prepared to look into any case, and hon. Members are swift, and rightly swift, in sending such cases to me when they come to their attention. In the overwhelming majority of cases if the changed circumstance is notified to the tax office, any necessary steps are taken within a matter of weeks and any repayment due is made forthwith. But I will certainly look into this matter to see whether we can improve and speed up the process.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Eadie: asked the Prime Minister if he will now appoint an additional Minister to deal with the problem of unemployment in Scotland.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I have nothing to add to the answer I gave on 9th November to Questions from the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter).—[Vol. 825, c. 125.]

Mr. Eadie: Is the Prime Minister aware that we have now reached a grim situation of national emergency proportions, and that today something unprecedented has happened for Scotland in that over 90 local authorities have lobbied Scottish Members of Parliament on the problem of Scottish unemployment? Indeed, I have just left them. Has the right hon. Gentleman read the proposition put forward by the S.T.U.C., and the eight-point programme that was initiated in the financial columns of the Sunday Times at the weekend? Will he appoint a Minister with a standing remit to implement some of those proposals?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have discussed these very serious matters with him and with some of his colleagues, as well as with members of the S.T.U.C. He will also be aware of the special measures which have already been taken for Scotland. I am, of course, always prepared to examine other proposals, and that is why, after discussion with the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, we have further examined the points he raised with us.

Mr. MacArthur: Will my right hon. Friend reject the arrogant criticisms of hon. and right hon. Members opposite, who made such a mess of employment in Scotland when they were in power? Will he promote the cautious growth of the total economy, which is the best way to produce the long-term employment which we need so urgently in Scotland?

The Prime Minister: I think that it is generally agreed that, whatever peculiar characteristics the regional unemployment problem may have, they can be dealt with satisfactorily only if the economy as a whole is prosperous. That is absolutely right. But it is also true, as my hon. Friend said, that Scotland has had this

very heavy problem of unemployment, and rising unemployment, continuously since 1966. That is undeniable. Apart from the structural changes going on in heavy industry in Scotland, there is also the fact that employers are obtaining the same productivity with a smaller number of men employed.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination of the activities of the Department of Social Services and the Department of Employment in dealing with unemployment in the West Midlands; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. There is close co-ordination between the Departments both at Headquarters and at local offices throughout the country, including the West Midlands.

Mr. Huckfield: Is not the Prime Minister aware that it is these two Government Departments that have to bear the brunt of his Government's deliberate policies, especially as the highest unemployment tends to be amongst those who are either disabled or handicapped? Further, is he not aware that, despite all the reflationary measures his right hon. Friend may announce this afternoon, there is a feeling in the West Midlands that we may never again attain our former level of prosperity?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the increased unemployment is the deliberate policy of this Government, he could not be more incorrect. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am very interested to hear the cheers from hon. Gentlemen opposite, because it shows that they are pursuing this purely as a political matter and are not concerned with unemployment. They know full well that it was their Government who, in the measures of 20th July, 1966, deliberately announced that they were increasing unemployment, and, in fact, doubled it.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend denounce the kind of stoppage like the Coventry toolroom dispute which, for utterly irresponsible reasons and with ostrich-like shop stewards, has created a situation where millions of pounds worth of valuable production has been lost, all of which is increasing unemployment and making it more difficult for employers


and others in the West Midlands to restore full prosperity?

The Prime Minister: Yes. Sir. I deplore all industrial disputes which lead to friction, loss of production and unemployment. In the November total of 127,000 unemployed in the West Midlands, 46,000 were temporarily stopped, one-third because of trade disputes. In the particular case which my hon. Friend mentioned, I hope that it is possible to reach a solution.

Mr. Jay: Would the Prime Minister say whether the present level of unemployment is in accordance with the Government's intentions or whether their calculations have gone wrong?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that this Government have constantly said that unemployment is too high and that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken steps to deal with that through economic measures. The House will be debating this matter for the rest of the day. I should have thought that, with his experience, one might have expected rather more from the right hon. Gentleman than that he should try to make debating points of that kind on a serious matter.

Mr. John D. Grant: asked the Prime Minister how many letters he has received about unemployment since 18th June, 1970.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave on 9th November to Questions from the hon. Members for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) and Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton).—[Vol 825, c. 825.]

Mr. Grant: I thank the Prime Minister for another non-answer. Is he aware that the statistic that concerns everyone, and which he should have indelibly imprinted on him, is 970,000? It looks like being one million very soon. Can he say how it feels to know that he will go down in the history books as the Prime Minister whose new style of government brought back the dole queue image to Britain?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman were prepared to examine the subject seriously, I would pay more attention to his remarks.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Would the Prime Minister now answer the question which he so deftly ducked three weeks ago, namely, what period of time he expected the British people to understand by the term "at a stroke"?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that we have already dealt with half of the selective employment tax and a very substantial amount of purchase tax. In this, we have pursued policies the reverse of those of his Government, who deliberately increased unemployment by increasing taxation.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Would the Prime Minister reconcile a recent statement of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in which he said it would take some time to extinguish the present high level of unemployment, with the Prime Minister's statement in June, 1970?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend was explaining in that speech that one of the characteristics of the present level of unemployment is the fact that, because of very high wage increases over the past two years, employers are obtaining the same output with a very much lower number of employees. Therefore, this matter has to be dealt with not just by increasing new industrial capacity, ployed regardless of their production, but by increasing new industrial capacity and this is what the country has to do—and providing new services for the people. That is the only way in which employment will be provided.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH SEA RESOURCES (EXPLORATION)

Mr. Ewing: asked the Prime Minister if he will consider making an additional Ministerial appointment in Scotland responsible for the future planning and development of the exploration of the North Sea resources off the shores of Scotland.

The Prime Minister: Oil exploration and exploitation off the shores of Scotland is proceeding well and I see no need for an additional Minister in Scotland. It is estimated that the United Kingdom section of the North Sea could produce about 75 million tons of oil a year by 1980.

Mr. Ewing: I thank the Prime Minister for that reply. I do not seek to deny that Questions Q1 and Q2 are not altogether unrelated, but in view of the great importance to the Scottish economy of the oil and gas finds off our coasts, particularly off Aberdeen, and in view, also, of the recent interest shown by various companies in setting up ancillary industries which would support the oil and gas industry in Scotland, and in view, also, of the contribution that these industries will make to the long-term economic solution which is necessary in Scotland, does not the Prime Minister accept that the additional appointment which I seek would be an investment in Scotland's future?

The Prime Minister: As I understand the situation, this development is proceeding apace. I do not consider it necessary to appoint another Minister to ensure that satisfactory progress is made. Of course, it is of great importance for Scotland, but also for the whole country. Aberdeen has so far benefited most, with over 50 firms employing more than 700 people in this particular development. Dundee has been chosen as British Petroleum's marine base, and the Cromarty Firth has been identified as a potential site for the manufacture of oil rig platforms and associated equipment. This development is going ahead fast and will be of very great value to Scotland and to the whole country.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be far more valuable, rather than appointing additional Ministers, to reduce the current fiscal burden on risk capital involved in ventures of this kind and, in particular, the type of discrimination against Scottish-based family companies introduced by the previous Government in the 1965 Finance Bill?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already taken certain steps to that end, in particular in last April's Budget. I am sure that he is well aware of these difficulties and is quite prepared to examine any ways in which this development can be helped. As the House knows, the Government are concerned with mineral exploration in this country, too, and are taking special measures to encourage that.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister undertake to inquire into the reasons why the British Steel Corporation cannot supply the £70 million worth of pipes required to bring the oil on to the mainland and why British Petroleum have already signed a first order for Japanese pipes when the Steel Corporation is running down at Consett?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I am perfectly prepared to inquire into that.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Prime Minister whether he will seek support from the Prime Ministers of the Common Market countries to the Declaration of London made with the Italian President.

The Prime Minister: The present Government have reaffirmed their support for the Anglo-Italian declaration of April, 1969, the import of which is well known to the Governments of the other members of the European Communities.

Mr. Fraser: Does the Prime Minister recall that one of the phrases in that agreement was that the European Community should be sustained by a directly elected European Parliament? Will the Prime Minister say that it will be at least one of the conditions of the accession to the Treaty of Rome that there shall be direct elections to that Parliament so that the power to raise taxation and the power to make laws does not pass from a democratically-elected assembly such as this to an assembly which is not responsible to a directly-elected or democratically-constituted body?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that was a declaration of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and of his Government, and they committed themselves to direct elections on entry to the Community. This is a matter which may very well be discussed at a summit, when it is possible to arrange one, with the leaders of European Governments.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does my right hon. Friend recall that in his Godkin lectures at Harvard, which preceded the Anglo-Italian declaration by several years, he counselled indirect elections to


the European Parliament? Can he say whether there are any plans to put this into operation?

The Prime Minister: What I said in the Godkin lectures was that I did not consider that to have influence, power and responsibility, a Parliament necessarily had to have the means of direct election. I pointed to the American Senate, one of the most powerful parliamentary bodies in the world, which achieved its position on a basis of indirect election, and only comparatively lately went to direct election. As far as Europe is concerned, I said that I believe that it is necessary to have democratic institutions, but if it is not possible to reach agreement on direct election immediately, it can still achieve its purposes by indirect election.

Sir G. de Freitas: In any discussions about direct elections, will the Prime Minister reject any system by which, in the United States, for instance, multimillionaires, such as the Kennedy's and the Rockefeller's, can buy their way into parliament and, indeed, will he insist that we have a system like that of the Germans, of controlled public expenditure for election expenses?

The Prime Minister: This is a fascinating subject. I had better not commit myself to views of that kind. We have our own well-established system here, which controls expenditure but at the same time does not provide for elections at public expense. Therefore, I would not like to commit myself off the cuff to the proposition that all elections for Europe ought to be carried out at public expense.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. Pounder: asked the Prime Minister whether he will pay an early official visit to Northern Ireland.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to visit Northern Ireland but should be glad to do so at an opportune time.

Mr. Pounder: I appreciate that answer from my right hon. Friend, but does he not realise that there is a strong and a growing view in Northern Ireland that a visit by him would be beneficial? No-

body is asking for any dramatic statement arising out of such a visit, but if he would come and see the serious situation there for himself it would be greatly appreciated.

The Prime Minister: Yes; I will certainly take that point into account.

Mr. Thorpe: The Prime Minister said that he would be prepared to visit Northern Ireland at an opportune time. What does he mean by "opportune"?

The Prime Minister: I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would realise that there are a very large number of considerations to be taken into account before a British Prime Minister makes a visit to Northern Ireland. I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister recognised the nature of these considerations. I am merely stating that when I consider that the balance is right I shall be prepared to visit Northern Ireland.

Mr. Duffy: In view of the sterling example set him last week by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, does not the Prime Minister think that it is now incumbent on him to pay a visit to both parts of Ireland at the earliest opportunity?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir; I do not take that view. The Leader of the Opposition made his own decision, and we gave him every assistance we could to ensure that his visit was valuable. I have had a meeting with the Prime Ministers of Northern Ireland and of Eire, something which had not happened for 50 years. I believe that that was the right way to go about matters.

Mr. Harold Wilson: In view of the supplementary question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), may I ask the Prime Minister whether he saw the report that when I was asked, both in Dublin and in Belfast, about a possible visit by him, I took the view that this was a matter for the Prime Minister and that my own visit had nothing to do with that?
Is the Prime Minister aware that from what I saw in Northern Ireland, about which I hope to speak in the debate on Thursday, I emphatically endorse what


he said about the decision, which he must take for himself—because there are many questions to take into consideration before such a decision could be taken?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I noticed the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, which I appreciated.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During supplementary questions on Question No. 13, you made a remark which perhaps you will be kind enough to elucidate for the benefit of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) asked that you allow him to continue his supplementary question and then you said that in your view the subject was perhaps one for debate rather than for questions.
It would be helpful to us, Mr. Speaker, if you would indicate whether your remark was directed to the Question which was being asked at the time rather than to the subject itself, because there were a number of hon. Members on this side on their feet seeking information on this subject, on which information is short. It seemed to my hon. Friends and I, and hon. Members opposite who were present may have had the same feeling, that according to your observation any subject down for question can be regarded as a subject for debate. May I express the hope that your comment was particular to the occasion and did not indicate in any way the view that the subject itself was not suitable for further questions.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for the way in which he has put his point. This is one of the great difficulties of the Chair. I was criticised the other day because so few Questions were reached. Today we had only 31. There comes a time when I have to exercise my judgment as to whether I think that it is questioning with a view to seeking information or to make debating points. That is a judgment for me. I have no doubt that I shall make mistakes and not give satisfaction. All I can promise is that I will do the best I can.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate

your difficulties, and nobody is trying to teach you your business. However, Mr. Speaker, you are sensitive to the feeling of the House, and it was apparent at that time that there were a large number of hon. Members wishing to ask questions. In such circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I think that you should pay attention to the views of the House when hon. Members wish to pursue a question.

Mr. Speaker: I should be very willing to be taught my business. It is a great help to have a teacher. I will study carefully what the hon. Members for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) and for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) have said and what I myself said at the time. There is pressure to get on with Questions. From the point of view of the Chair, it would be much easier to let supplementary questions run. Then we should have 5, 6, 7 or 8 Questions a day. It would be much easier for me and cause me much less anxiety. However, I am willing to be taught my business, and I will study what the hon. Gentleman has said.

CAIRNGORMS (CLIMBING ACCIDENT)

Mr. Russell Johnston: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the climbing accident in the Cairngorms in which a number of young people lost their lives.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): Every Member of the House will have seen or heard reports of this tragedy in the Cairngorms at the weekend. It has cost the lives of five Edinburgh schoolchildren and a young leader. A physical education student, who was leading the party, and one schoolboy are seriously ill in hospital at Inverness. I am sure the House will join with me in expressing our deep sympathy with all who have suffered distress and bereavement. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has sent a message of sympathy to the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office called on the Lord Provost yesterday to convey a similar message from me.
It is not yet possible to say in what circumstances the party set out on its


expedition. The party was part of a group from the mountaineering club of Ainslie Park Secondary School in Edinburgh, which was based on an outdoor centre owned by Edinburgh Education Authority. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has decided to institute a public inquiry under the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act, 1906.
It must be the aim of all concerned to establish, in the light of what happened last weekend, what steps can best be taken to guard against any repetition of this tragedy. I understand that at its meeting today Edinburgh Education Committee decided to restrict the activities of pupils at its two outdoor centres and, in particular, to rule out overnight absences and to cancel all courses on winter mountaineering for pupils.
At the moment I would only add a tribute to all who took part in the rescue operations. These included police from the Inverness and North-Eastern Counties Constabularies, the Cairngorm and Braemar Mountain Rescue teams, the staff of Glenmore Lodge, and the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force. They worked tirelessly without regard for their own personal safety in very difficult conditions, and but for their efforts there would have been no survivors from the party.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The whole House will obviously echo what he has said in expressing sympathy with the bereaved parents in their sorrow. I would specifically mention the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Anthony Stodart) from whose constituency the children came and who I know has been in touch with the parents. This is a very sad business.
I echo what the Secretary of State has said about the mountain rescue teams, the police, and the local rescue forces whose hard work we all recognise.
I wish to ask the Secretary of State two questions in what is a very difficult matter to do anything about. First, the right hon. Gentleman has said that there will be an inquiry under the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act. I hope that one of the matters on which great emphasis will be laid is the need to institute some kind of warning system. I know that this is terribly

difficult, because anybody who has ever been to the Cairngorms knows that climatic conditions change with startling suddenness. We need some kind of harbour master of the hills, whatever one likes to call him, somebody to say, "No".
Second, these were young people. Alistair McCook, the leader of the Cairngorm Rescue Team, has been very critical of the fact that young people were allowed to go up to the mountain in this situation.
The Secretary of State knows that in recent years there has been great emphasis on "outward bound" activity. In my constituency and in the North generally there has been a proliferation of establishments dealing with this sort of thing of which Lagganlia run by Edinburgh Corporation is but one. I think that the Secretary of State should consider carefully whether these different establishments, some of them run by education authorities and some by youth organisations, should not be put under the direct control of the S.C.P.R., which knows its business and which might be able to prevent such tragic accidents from happening again.

Mr. Campbell: I understand that all the dead were constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Anthony Stodart), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, who also has sent messages of sympathy.
The question of a warning system will lie within the remit of the inquiry, which can make suggestions and recommendations for avoiding the recurrence of such an incident. I myself made a similar suggestion on 20th February, 1969, from the Opposition side of the House when I put a Private Notice Question about the avalanche in the Cairngorms, in which nine people were buried, though, mercifully, on that occasion, none died. I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's second suggestion regarding co-ordination.

Mr. Speaker: I propose to call next the three hon. Members who also sought to put Private Notice Questions on this subject.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: I express my sympathy and join in the messages sent


by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West, in whose constituency these young people lived. Indeed, all Edinburgh Members—one of whom, I know, is in Australia at the moment—send sympathy to the parents and relatives of those who died. I record my appreciation and admiration, too, for the work of the rescue teams.
Agreeing somewhat with the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will look into the possibility of some agency, voluntary or official, being given the duty and power to warn, to advise and, perhaps, to deter climbers in these areas during the winter months?

Mr. Campbell: I assure my hon. Friend that the Scottish Office, for its part, by a circular to schools in October last year, drew attention to the element of danger involved in outdoor activities, including mountaineering, and the importance of ensuring that teachers in charge of such activities are suitably qualified to lead. I shall give further thought to the matter in the light of what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Strang: All right hon. and hon. Members will wish to be associated with the expressions of symyathy to the parents and relatives of those involved in this disaster.
Could the right hon. Gentleman say when the inquiry is likely to report? Second, will he consider, in the meantime, issuing advice to local authorities which may be arranging similar climbing expeditions?

Mr. Campbell: An inquiry of this kind usually reports within about two months. In the meantime, I shall take any action which is open to me to try to prevent the occurrence of any similar accident.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that the parents of some of the young people involved, who now live in the constituency of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West, will be my constituents if the proposed boundary changes take place. I associate myself with the sympathy which he has extended to all the bereaved.
Will the inquiry under the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act which the Lord Advocate has ordered be of the fullest possible kind

so that we may ascertain with complete certainty, or as great certainty as possible, what the facts were before any blame is attributed to anyone? Second, will the right hon. Gentleman take it upon himself, as Secretary of State, to ensure that the widest publicity is given throughout all adventure groups to the dangers to be encountered on our hills in winter?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that the procedure under Scottish law provides for a very wide remit for the inquiry. I have already referred to the action already taken by circular in October last year. I shall see whether there is anything more we can do to make sure that everyone concerned is aware of the dangers.

Mr. Ross: The whole House will be in accord with the sympathy and sentiments expressed by the Secretary of State.
One further point arises from the right hon. Gentleman's statement. He said that it would be two months before the inquiry reports. Has he in mind any emergency action bringing together the local authorities, the police, the mountain rescue people, the ski clubs and so on in the area to put into practice some emergency procedures? Obviously, in these conditions, we must err on the side of safety.

Mr. Campbell: I understand that the speed and co-ordination of the rescue services were not in question on this occasion. I shall certainly ensure that this co-ordination works as effectively on any future occasion. I think that the question of warning is what concerns the House most—living just north of this area, I have for a long time been concerned about it, too—and I shall give full attention to it.

Mr. Brewis: Is it an essential requirement that all who engage in this sort of expedition leave a complete itinerary showing where they propose to go, before they set out?

Mr. Campbell: I cannot prejudge what may come out of the inquiry into this incident, but it is a sensible precaution for anyone in these circumstances to leave information about where he intends to go.

Sir M. Galpern: I recognise that mountaineering can be an excellent character training activity, but will the


Secretary of State go a little beyond the point of warning about the dangers involved by now following the lead of the Edinburgh Education Authority and instructing local authorities similarly arranging mountaineering activities in the winter time to cease forthwith?

Mr. Campbell: I shall consider that suggestion. As I have said, I have already sent warnings to all the education authorities concerned. I shall consider what further action may be usefully taken.

Earl of Dalkeith: Will my right hon. Friend make it abundantly clear by every means at his disposal that it is not only children who are vulnerable when climbing in mountains like the Cairngorms but many adults during the past few years have caused great anxiety to those who have had to go to look for them? Could he institute some sort of system whereby all those concerned to go climbing let someone in responsibility know where they are going, and when they are going, so that they may be checked for the right equipment, food and supplies?

Mr. Campbell: As my noble Friend says, there have, unfortunately, been other incidents in recent years, but tragedies have been avoided in recent years, also, by the warnings and precautions which have been taken. We cannot be satisfied, however, whenever an accident of this nature can occur, and I certainly shall never be.

Mr. Rankin: In spite of what the Secretary of State has said, will he now, in view of the nature and extent of the terrible casualty list as a result of this expedition, lay down that no further ventures of this kind can be sanctioned until we know precisely what happened in this case?

Mr. Campbell: I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I do not think that it would be within the power of any Minister or Department to stop individuals doing something of this kind. I hope that the publicity given to the incident and to what has been said in the House today, together with any further action which I hope to be able to stimulate myself, will make the warning clear to everyone this winter, until the inquiry is completed, which, as I say, may take about two months, though it could well be shorter than that.

NORTHERN IRELAND (ELECTRONIC NOISE MACHINE)

Mr. George Cunningham: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the refusal of the Secretary of State for Defence to allow a Member of Parliament to see and hear the electronic noise machine which the Compton Report found had been used in forcing information out of internees in Northern Ireland".
Much as the House wants to move on to the debate which is to follow, Mr. Speaker, I hope that you and the House will give this matter most serious consideration. Whatever may be one's views about the general situation in Northern Ireland, this is a grave matter not only in relation to our prison practices but in relation to the rights of the House.
I do not believe that there can be any precedent for the matter which I am now raising, Mr. Speaker, for not in his deepest nightmares could Erskine May ever have imagined that the question of torture by British officials would ever be raised, or would ever need to be raised, in this way. The kind of machine to which I refer is that mentioned in paragraphs 60 and 94 of the Compton Report. In paragraph 60 the machine was described as one which
subjected"—
the internees—
to a continuous hissing noise, or electronic 'mush', loud enough to mask extraneous sounds and prevent effective oral communication between detainees.
The finding of the Committee was that the machine subjected the internees to
continuous and monotonous noise of a volume calculated to isolate them from communication …".
It concluded that this was a form of physical ill-treatment.
I believe that these actions constitute illegal acts under the law of this country and of Northern Ireland. I have no intention of going into the merits of the case. I am only trying to make a case for the House and you, Sir, to decide that it is a matter which needs to be considered now. Those acts certainly constitute torture by anyone's normal definition, particularly when sustained for the very long hours mentioned in the


report. The use of the machine on those occasions was not required for keeping internal order in the establishment.
On Friday I made a telephone request to the Secretary of State's office for permission to see and hear such a machine. I received no reply. I repeated the request on Monday morning and again was given no reply. I pressed the matter again this morning and insisted upon a reply. The reply I was given, on the authority of the Minister of State, was, first, that I could not see and hear the machine. It was a categorical, "No". Second, I was told that the machine was in existence and that one example was in a security establishment in this country, access to which was available only on a need-to-know basis. Third, I was told that the Committee of Privy Councillors when set up would be able to see and hear anything of that kind that it wanted.
There are two reasons in particular why the matter is urgent enough for the House and you, Mr. Speaker, to consider it now. First, on Thursday we shall be debating the Irish situation, including points in the Compton Report, no doubt—[HON. MEMBERS: "Exactly."]—Perhaps there are hon. Members opposite who do not want to know the nature of the machine which was in use. But I certainly want to know before the debate on Thursday begins.
Second, there is the following cause for urgency—[Interruption.] The gravity of this point, whatever one's opinion about

it, must surely be accepted, and the case does not deserve to be interrupted in that way. The second reason for urgency is that I was informed by the Minister's office that one example of the machine is in current use in this country, particularly for training. That this machine of torture is in current use is a grave matter. If we are to subject prisoners in this country to ill-treatment, I for one want to see and hear the implements of torture, and I want you, Mr. Speaker, and the House now to make an opportunity for the Minister's decision on the matter to be reversed by the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the refusal of the Secretary of State for Defence to allow a Member of Parliament to see and hear the electronic noise machine which the Compton Report found had been used in forcing information out of internees in Northern Ireland.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his intention to make this application. I have considered the matter and listened carefully to what he said. The only decision I have to make is whether the matter should be given precedence over the business already set down so that there can be an emergency debate under Standing Order No. 9. I am afraid that I cannot grant the hon. Gentleman's application.

UNEMPLOYMENT

3.56 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the continuing failure of the policies of Her Majesty's Government which have led to the present intolerable level of unemployment.
It was exactly a fortnight ago today that the House last discussed unemployment, on an Opposition Amendment to the Address in reply to the Queen's Speech. But there is no one in the country who believes that we are playing party politics in raising the matter again today or that the Motion is not completely justified.
A fortnight ago the situation was already appalling enough, with the total number of registered unemployed reaching a new peak in October of 887,000, or 3·9 per cent., while the wholly unemployed rose to the alarming level of 833,000, seasonally adjusted, a rise of 50 per cent. since the Labour Party left power. Yet there were voices to be heard in certain sections of the Press last month, no doubt encouraged by sedulous briefing from the Department of Employment, to the effect that the figures for October were encouraging and showed that the rising unemployment was beginning to flatten out. Patient and courageous policies, it was hinted, were beginning to pay off and all the Government had to do was to ride the storm.
But with the publication of the November figures the mood of even the Government's most sycophantic admirers has changed dramatically. The alarm bells are really ringing in the country and, I believe, in the Cabinet. What do the November figures show? The total number of registered unemployed has jumped to 926,000 in Great Britain alone and reached a sombre milestone of 4 per cent. If Northern Ireland is included, it needs a rise of only 0·1 per cent. to take us over the 1 million mark of registered unemployed. Few people now doubt that that is inevitable.
It is no use the Chancellor of the Exchequer's taking refuge, as the Prime Minister and his supporters tried to do earlier today at Question Time, behind the effects of the Coventry tool room strike. The only thing the Government

are any good at manufacturing is alibis. The most damning, damaging and relentless element in unemployment under them has been the rise in the number of wholly unemployed, which has reached the fantastic total of 855,000, seasonally adjusted, for Great Britain alone, another grim record for right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
It might be argued that it is unfair to compare this with June, 1970—to compare a winter month with a summer month—so let us compare like with like. Let us take the last November figure of the Labour Government. In November, 1969, the number of wholly unemployed, seasonally adjusted, fell by a few thousand, giving a total of 538,000. So the increase since then under this Government has been not 50 per cent. but nearly 60. As The Times put it last Friday, such figures are
morally, economically, socially and politically intolerable.
But the figures do not tell the whole story. While the picture continues to darken in the traditionally hard-hit areas—4,400 more wholly unemployed in Scotland, 4,100 more in the South-West, nearly 3,000 more in Yorkshire and Humberside—other areas are now overtaking them. In the North-West, where the textile industry is on the edge of total collapse, there were over 5,000 more wholly unemployed last month, which, taken with the increases in previous months, means that the North-Western Region is rapidly becoming one of our major depressed areas. In my area of Blackburn, where unemployment at the time of the last General Election was below the national average of 2·4 per cent., the figure has risen to 4 ·5 per cent. and, as the textile unions pointed out in their memorandum to the Prime Minister, 500 more people face unemployment as a result of mill closures in the Blackburn area alone.
In the West Midlands, once this country's thriving industrial heartland, there is no sign of returning confidence. The figure of wholly unemployed is up again by over 400,000—[Interruption.]I mean 4,000, and it is no good the Prime Minister quoting strikes to try to argue that away. So unemployment in the West Midlands has risen from 2·8 to 7·8 per cent. in the past year.
But the really dramatic increase has taken place in the South-East, which has now jumped to the top of the league table with an increase in wholly unemployed of no fewer than 10,482 people in the past month.
The disease of Toryism has indeed bitten deep into the economy. There are two proofs of that. Although the number of school leavers without a job has, as we would expect, fallen this month, it is still more than twice as high as it was a year ago. The number of unfilled vacancies is down again by over 10,000, half of them in youth employment. As a result, the figures given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) only a fortnight ago must already be uprated. In October—the latest month for which regional figures are available, and they have got worse since then—14 adult males in the West Midlands were looking for every available job. The number of adult males looking for every job in the North-West is 15 and in Scotland it has arisen to 36—and I repeat that the figures have become worse since. People are looking for jobs in a country whose productive capacity to create jobs is shrinking all the time, so that many people, particularly women, have been forced out of employment who have not bothered to register. There is no doubt that the registered unemployment figures gravely underestimate the Brim realities and the waste of human resources which is the direct result of Tory policies.
I say that it is the direct result of Tory policies advisedly, because it is not as if the Government have not been warned time and again about what is happening. In the past 16 months we and the country have become tired of the Government's capacity to produce not deeds but words—an endless stream of complacent prophecies. As long ago as November last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted to the House that he was being urged to reflate the economy on the grounds that output was stagnant and that unemployment would rise. He rejected those pleas. He said that the economy was more buoyant than some people had been suggesting and that, therefore, it would be wrong to increase the pressure of demand.
In March, output having been stubbornly stagnant, the Chancellor introduced a Budget which took away with one hand what it gave with the other. He said:
I could have brought about a reduction in … unemployment by giving a still larger boost to consumer demand than I have."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1971 Vol. 815, c. 167.]
But he still refused to do so. In July, with unemployment still rising relentlessly, he had another nibble at the mushroom, taking measures which he assured the House would stimulate an increase in national output of between 4 and 4½ per cent. between the first halves of 1971 and 1972. He added these confident words:
The level of unemployment, after allowing for seasonal factors, should stop rising, perhaps after a couple of months or so, and before very long it should start to fall."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th July, 1971; Vol. 821, c. 1043.]
"Start to fall"! The number of wholly unemployed was then 788,000. It has risen every month since.
The Prime Minister has boasted that his Government would never allow themselves to be blown off course. Therefore, he must have been deliberately steering for these economic rocks. As The Times put it on 22nd October:
Unemployment is at its present level quite simply as the result of a combination of forecasting mistakes"—
and some mistakes!—
and of a conscious policy preference for unemployment over accelerating inflation.
The trouble is that we have had both.
The question we want to ask, therefore, is: shall we at last have a change of heart and a change of course, or are we to have the sort of whitewashing operation in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer indulged at such length in last Sunday's Sunday Telegraph? Does the Chancellor really believe that this country can achieve an annual growth rate of 4 to 4½ per cent. between 1971 and 1972 as a result of his July measures? If so, when will they start bringing unemployment down, and by what amount? The first indictment against the Government is that they have deliberately allowed us to drift towards the scandal of having 1 million people unemployed—a new peak from which


their measures must claw us down. Nothing can now avoid the misery and insecurity which the Government have brought to over 1 million homes, to say nothing of the loss of production which they have thrown away.
However, the really alarming factor is that the effect of the Chancellor's July measures on unemployment even when they take effect, will be quite inadequate. I ask the Chancellor again—he has been asked it before: what is the estimate of the new jobs which his July measures will create—150,000 or 200,000? That is the general estimate, certainly not more. This means that it will take two years, even if the estimated growth is achieved and sustained, to bring unemployment down to 600,000 or 700,000, a figure which the Government said was unacceptable when we were in power. Yet we left them with a record balance of payments surplus, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stechford said a fortnight ago, if we had been returned to power our highest priority would have been to use that new strength to bring these unacceptable figures down substantially.
What is the Government's policy? I warn the Chancellor that the House is in no mood to listen to his tired alibis. It is no good the Government saying that they found the situation worse than they expected when they came to power. Worse than they expected after all the warnings of imminent economic disaster by the Prime Minister during the General Election campaign? Worse than they expected after Lord Cromer's intervention in the Tory cause? Worse than expected when one of the last speeches the Prime Minister made in the General Election contained a warning that devaluation was round the corner? Yes, right hon. Gentlemen opposite were well aware of the economic difficulties. They merely said they had a foolproof method of dealing with them "at a stroke".
What was that method—to hold wage increases down, as the Prime Minister only this afternoon has again been suggesting at the Dispatch Box? On the contrary, the way to deal with inflation, the Conservatives said, was a painless one or the whole community. It was to act directly on prices. So they have. They have acted directly on prices to put them up.
No doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech will consist of tedious repetition of the old argument that we have had in the Sunday Telegraph and from the Prime Minister, that the only way to cure inflation and, therefore, to cure unemployment is to stand firm against "excessive pay claims", as the Chancellor of the Exchequer called them in the Sunday Telegraph, adding:
We mean to go on doing that.
If that has always been the Government's belief and the Government's policy, why had they not the honesty during the General Election to tell the country that this was their policy? Why did not this man of steel, the Prime Minister, talk frankly to the trade unions, instead of trying to woo their votes by saying exactly the opposite? Let me remind the House of what the right hon. Gentleman said on Thames TV on 30th April last year, a few weeks before the election campaign:
I think you are being unfair to the unions and to the workers in saying that this price explosion is due to a wage explosion.
The right hon. Gentleman, squaring up for the election battle, said that it was due to deliberate Government policy. The right way, he told us, was not to hold wages down but to get production up. He added:
And this is the new approach I want to bring about.
Judge his success: in the first six months of the year production actually fell. Yet he dares to talk about the irresponsibility of trade unions. One cannot win a General Election by promising paradise and then expecting people to accept purgatory. They are likely to realise that they have been following a false god.
In any objective quarter no one now doubts that the roaring inflation and the record unemployment which we are now experiencing are due to the collapse of the Government's policies. We are faced with something far more serious than just a bit of bad forecasting. We are faced with the consequences of a Government which from the start have misjudged the needs and the mood of the people of this country and of British industry, a Government which have been obsessed with the wrong priorities, obsessed with cutting taxation instead of creating jobs, obsessed with legislating against the trade unions instead of getting ahead with


that "massive" expansion of industrial training that was promised during the General Election.
The Secretary of State for Employment has still to produce to the House the plans which I left on his desk 16 months ago for the radical modernisation of our employment services, a practical step which we were taking to deal with the unemployment problem.
The fact is, as the House knows, that all the Government's pet nostrums have failed. Halving S.E.T., giving tax incentives to the rich, passing the Industrial Relations Act, getting into Europe, clamping down on wage increases—none of these has cured inflation, given us a stronger economy or restored business confidence.
The most telling judgment on the effectiveness of the Government is being passed by the business community. Forecasts show a fall in manufacturing investment this year of 6 to 8 per cent. compared with last year, and investment intentions remain obstinately muted. Indeed, criticism of the Government from every quarter is now merciless.
The most serious element in unemployment is the regional element. Last Friday The Times complained of the collapse of significant regional policies under the present Government, and said:
The simultaneous loss of the regional employment premium, of effective industrial incentives and a determined I.D.C. policy has been too much.
On Sunday the Sunday Times came out
with "Eight Points to Cure the Jobless Tragedy",
every one of which calls for a reversal of Government policies. The Sunday Times added that no doubt its proposals went against the Tory grain:
But only direct action by the central Government can speed up the economy when the private sector has no confidence.
Indeed, the bitterest criticism of their past philosophy is coming from the Government themselves as they steadily beat a retreat from their old positions on prices, on public expenditure and on the nationalised industries. The scapegoats of the past have become the new saviours of a desperate Cabinet. A Government dedicated to cutting public expenditure as a method of getting the economy

stimulated again have now been forced into reverse and are raising millions of pounds in a frantic effort to stem the rising unemployment. We had another example of this new largesse yesterday from the Secretary of State for Social Services.
Last October the Chancellor of the Exchequer, faithful to his party's ideology, was cutting the budgets of nationalised industries. He said that the trend of public expenditure in the nationalised industries was too high and must be reversed. Now we read in the Press that nationalised industries are to be urged to spend, spend, spend. Not for the first time, the public sector has had to be brought to the rescue of the market economy.
The final irony is that, as we heard on the radio on Saturday, the Government are to set up a new body, the Commission for Fair Competition, which we are told will deal with firms which abuse their market power by passing on increased costs through price increases. Shades of the Commission for Industry and Manpower! Just before the General Election I introduced a Bill to set up the Commission for Industry and Manpower, which the Secretary of State for Employment denounced as "a recipe for disaster", adding, for good measure, that my proposals were:
… nothing but a spoof—a great big spoof."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th April, 1970: Vol. 799, c. 578.]
The only consolation that the right hon. Gentleman can have today is that, apparently, he will not have to introduce the new Bill.
This afternoon we shall await the Chancellor of the Exchequer's announcements with interest. Will he tell us that the Government's policies are working and should not be changed, or shall we have a tacit admission of failure, under the guise no doubt, of perfect timing, by the announcement of new measures which he will claim he always had up his sleeve in the first place? If he announces new measures, we shall certainly welcome them, and we shall scrutinise them carefully to see whether they are adequate. But nothing can alter the fact that for 16 months the Government have stubbornly pursued priorities that have led us to this tragic level of unemployment and brought misery to a


million families. Nothing can alter the fact that the Government's philosophy is incompatible with full employment and with the planned economy that can alone make it possible.
The Government did not act until there was a national outcry. The best the Government can now do is to tinker with a great social problem which they have no idea how to solve. The only shake-out this country needs is the shake-out of this Government. That is why we shall press this censure Motion to a vote tonight.

4.20 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Anthony Barber): As the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) said, it is exactly a fortnight since we had a full day's debate primarily concerned with unemployment, in which I spoke. There have been some observations in the Press about the reasons for the change in business at the request of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, but I can say that from my personal point of view I am pleased that the business was changed and that we are having this debate today because it gives me the opportunity to express the Government's views in the light of the latest developments.
Whatever differences there may be between us—and I will come to them later—I hope that the overwhelming majority of the House can agree on one thing. The determined objective of the Government is the reduction of the present unacceptable level of unemployment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] To pretend otherwise is both pernicious and ludicrous. I say that because I am just as concerned as the right hon. Lady about the personal misery, worry and hardship caused by unemployment, and I will not have it said otherwise. [An HON. MEMBER: "Wipe away your tears."]
The problem which we and the country face, and the consequences for individuals in terms of human disappointment and waste, are such that I do not believe the British people would lightly forgive right hon. and hon. Members opposite if they were merely to use this debate as an attempt to make political capital. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh. "] I shall come later to the question whether the Government ought to have done more or whether they ought to have acted earlier.

Mr. Alex Eadie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fact very few Scottish Tory Members are listening to his speech at this very moment is no fault of theirs, but is due to the fact that at this moment they are meeting in this House a deputation of over 90 local authorities which have lobbied all Scottish M.P.s because of the disgraceful unemployment figures? Will he take back what he said about this being a political issue, because all shades of opinion are represented in this lobby this afternoon?

Mr. Barber: If I understood the hon. Gentleman aright, he is saying that this occasion should not be made a party political matter, in which case I agree with him.
I was saying that I shall come later to the question whether the Government ought to have done more or whether we should have acted earlier. First, it is necessary to say this: for reasons which I explained in the debate a fortnight ago I believe there is now a combination of factors which makes possible in the years ahead a more rapid and sustained rate of economic growth. I believe it will be universally agreed that that is the one sure way to a rising standard of living and full employment. If we are not to prejudice that objective, it is necessary to consider the underlying causes of the increase in unemployment. Certainly it is not a simple case of falling demand. Demand and output have on the whole been rising, but productivity has been rising, too, and indeed has been rising very fast.
In the past when we have had a period of unusually rapid growth of productivity, it has generally been in the context of a strong upsurge in demand and production. But the past 12 to 18 months have, in this important respect, been different. At a time of rather moderate growth in production the growth of productivity has been unusually large. In fact, in the third quarter of this year output per head in the index of production industries is provisionally estimated at 6¼ per cent. higher than in the same period last year. Of course, in terms of our ability to compete with the rest of the world and so in terms of our future prospects for sustained growth, this change is wholly welcome. But the concomitant of this remarkable improvement in productivity


has on this occasion been the very large increase in unemployment.
Nobody who is in touch with industry has any doubt at all about two things. First, employers generally have been carrying out a policy of economising in labour as far as possible. Secondly, one of the principal reasons for this lies in the very large increases in wages and salaries—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—which were accepted both before and during this period. All I can say to those who doubt this is that it is not only the commonsense point of view; it is the consensus of views of those who take the decisions in industry.

Mrs. Castle: I thought that, according to the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Conservative Party believed in a high wage economy. Is this not always an accompaniment of a high wage economy?

Mr. Barber: Yes, indeed, we do believe in a high wage economy, but, like Mr. Victor Feather, we believe in high real wages. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition to laugh, but it was the right hon. Gentleman himself who said:
Restraint on incomes is our only guarantee against unemployment.

Mrs. Castle: No doubt this is the second time the quotation has been made from my right hon. Friend's speech on 5th September, 1966. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware what the level of unemployment then was? It was 1·4 per cent.

Mr. Barber: No doubt the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), if in the new circumstances he disagrees with his right hon. Friend's remarks, will tell us when he comes to wind up the debate on behalf of the Opposition.

Mr. Harold Wilson: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot say what was the unemployment figure when I said that, could he say what the inherited balance of payments deficit still was when I used those words?

Mr. Barber: I could also tell the right hon. Gentleman, if he does not know it, what the level of debts was which he left to us. The simple truth is that people

have literally been pricing themselves out of jobs. One manager after another will say that he has been compelled by the pressure of labour costs to streamline the labour force and think twice before taking on additional workers. That is the reality of the situation.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: rose—

Mr. Barber: There is one point I should like to put to the right hon. Member for Stechford.

Mr. Atkinson: Will you give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well he must not make that sort of interjection ever in the House.

Mr. Atkinson: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that if another right hon. or hon. Member does not give way, he must not persist and must not try to make himself heard in the way he did.

Mr. Atkinson: The right hon. Gentleman ought to have said he was not giving way.

Mr. Barber: I have a great deal to say to the House, and I was just going on to say that it is surprising that the right hon. Member for Stechford went out of his way in the debate on the Address to deny what I have just been saying about the effect of wage settlements on unempoyment.
If I might remind the House of the right hon. Gentleman's speech a fortnight ago, he said:
If wages had gone up less, given the Government's price policy, there would have been higher and not lower unemployment today."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1971; Vol 825, c. 844–5.]
I find that a surprising observation, because, if wages had gone up less, prices would also have gone up less, and certainly there is nothing in the Government's price policy which would have prevented that. I can see little or nothing in the right hon. Gentleman's argument about consumer demand. On the other hand, there seems to be no doubt that if wage increases had been lower the policy of economising in labour would


not have been carried to the point of producing the unemployment situation that we see today.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that so far this year real wages have increased by only the narrowest possible margin. The increase in either hourly wage rates or in average weekly earnings above the rate of price increase has been very small. Clearly, there is some time lag between wages increases and the effect upon prices. Given the Government's price policy, had wages increased by less this year the inevitable result would have been a fall in real wages, with still lower purchasing power, still lower demand and higher unemployment.

Mr. Barber: I have no doubt that the House will recall that when the right hon. Gentleman was Chancellor of the Exchequer he was preaching wage restraint. I hope that, when he comes to reply to the debate he will as a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, weigh his words carefully and answer one simple question. Is he now advocating an escalation in the rate of pay settlements? I think we are entitled to know the answer, because that was the implication in what he said last week.

Mr. Atkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Barber: No.

Mr. Atkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This sort of question and answer business seems to be on the basis of which school a right hon. or hon. Member attended. Are interventions restricted to an élite in this House? If so, will the right hon. Gentleman say who are the élite?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: A right hon. or hon. Member gives way to whom he wishes to give way to and to no one else. No hon. Member can seek to intervene of his own volition unless the right hon. or hon. Member on his feet allows him to do so.

Mr. Atkinson: Further to that point of order. If this is to be the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the employment record that he has—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that I cannot accept any of that us a point of order.

Mr. Barber: I referred specifically to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford. For that reason, it seemed only courteous to give way to him when he wished to intervene.
The high level of pay settlements was not the only factor in the situation. Over the past few years, under the previous Administration, company profits and liquidity had been squeezed, and the restraints on credit made it difficult for firms to escape the results of their liquidity situation by borrowing. So the policies of restriction and inflation pursued by the previous Administration made their mark, as they were intended to do.
The situation has now changed in a number of ways, very largely through the measures that we have taken. To a considerable extent, profit margins have been restored and the liquidity position of companies has improved greatly. Consumer demand has risen strongly since the middle of this year, especially but not exclusively in cars and other consumer durables. But still, as we know from our own experience, many companies say that they have not yet seen the increase in orders for which they are looking. One reason for this is that in many cases the first reaction of traders and manufacturers to the higher demand has been to run down their stocks. But this cannot go on for long, and the turn-round, when it comes, will have a considerable influence in spreading the effects of higher demand along the line of production.
The worst thing for industry and commerce is uncertainty. There can be little doubt that one factor in the uncertainty arises from the matter which we considered at Question Time today. That is the international monetary situation and doubts about the future of exchange rates, the American surcharge and the danger of an international competition in protectionist measures. The Group of Ten meets again next week in Rome. I hope we shall make some progress on that front.

Mr. Thomas Swain: rose—

Mr. Barber: I hope I shall not be asked to give way any more because I have a considerable amount of material


to get through before I complete my speech.

Mr. Swain: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Atkinson: Which school, Tom?

Mr. Swain: Borstal. Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the point about security, will he, if he believes in the security of industry, now give some security to British miners by rescinding the order allowing foreign coal to come into the country?

Mr. Barber: No, Sir. Every Chancellor of the Exchequer knows—certainly the right hon. Member for Stechford knows—that in the management of the economy one cannot proceed solely by looking at the most recent economic indicators of the immediate past weeks. It is also necessary to have regard to action already taken which will affect the future course of the economy. It follows that if, as I believe, the House wishes to make a serious appraisal of the situation and to consider objectively how the Government should react to that situation it is necessary first of all to consider the action that the Government have already taken.
I said in the debate a fortnight ago—it was not challenged then, and it has not been challenged since—that never before have a Government taken so much action to expand demand and stimulate employment. The action that we have taken falls into two parts. The first consists of the measures of general reflation by way of reductions in taxation: the reductions in income tax, the two cuts in corporation tax, the halving of S.E.T.—which was derided by the right hon. Lady, who obviously wanted it to remain—and the biggests cuts in purchase tax for 18 years.
It is important to recognise that most of these measures did not start to have an effect on demand until the summer. Inevitably, in the nature of things there is bound to be, as there always has been, a time lag between general reflationary action of this kind and its full effect on employment. The right hon. Member for Stechford will agree with that, I am sure. At any rate I am sure that, with the benefit of hindsight, he will not challenge the proposition that the restric-

tionist policies that he pursued year after year were bound to have some depressing effect on the level of activity after he left office. I put it no higher than that.
In addition to the cuts in taxation, the other general reflationary measures which have been taken include the abolition of all hire-purchase terms controls, and the results of this are apparent already in the figures for sales of cars and consumer durables. Next, the Bank Rate has been reduced from 7 to 5 per cent., and it is now at its lowest for seven years. Also there has been a general easing of credit. Finally, we have provided the biggest ever increase in pensions, an action which is both reflationary and directly meeting needs.
On two or three occasions the right hon. Lady referred to the leader in The Times last Friday. I, too, wish to quote from that leader, because it went on to say:
There is no denying that the economy has received an enormously powerful fiscal and monetary stimulus over the past few months.
In addition, there has been one other development which is bound to have, and was intended to have, a general reflationary effect. That is the price restraint policy of the nationalised industries, matching the similar restraint by private industry. This policy, by acting directly on prices, is very similar indeed in its impact on demand to cuts in indirect taxation, and in this way is a further powerful influence on the side of reflation.
But of course the action already taken does not stop there. It is quite right that in the present circumstances there should also be talk of direct action in addition to general measures. I summarise the position here, and do so because, as the various measures have been announced at different times, it is clear that in some quarters their full extent is not realised. The fact is that, over and above the cuts in taxation and the other general reflationary actions, the Government have taken measures amounting to nearly an additional £500 million over the next two years or so—measures specially designed to boost investment and employment.
These measures include over £200 million on capital works and housing


improvement grants in development and intermediate areas, and the additional amount of more than £70 million to be spent on naval shipbuilding, almost all of it in development areas. On top of all this, we have extended to the service industries free depreciation for plant and machinery installed in the development areas. Taken together, these measures will both create more employment in the regions and will also make the regions better places to live in. Outside the development areas, industry will have available over the next two years a further £150 million by way of accelerated depreciation allowances.
This is action already being taken. It is certainly, if I may say so to right hon. Gentleman opposite, who keep on intervening, no mere winter works programme and far more than a sudden response to one month's figures. The fact that it has taken some time for me to list the main elements of the action already taken, even to list them in summary form, is in itself an indication of the variety and extent of these actions.
I am astonished on such an occasion, when we are having a serious debate on unemployment, to hear the right hon. Lady referring to the taxation changes since this Government took office in terms of the March Budget as being neutral and of the July measures as being a nibble. I will put this into perspective for her. During the two and a half years when her right hon. Friend was Chancellor, acting, I do not doubt and have never queried, in what he believed to be the best interests of the nation, he increased taxation by £1,400 million. In the last 12 months, I have announced reductions totalling more than £1,400 million on a comparable basis.
Whatever the differences between us—and I recognise that the right hon. Lady in many of the things she was saying was speaking genuinely—no one can seriously deny that the totality of the measures we have taken over the past nine months or so is nothing short of massive. It is certainly far greater than has ever been undertaken by any previous Government, and it makes a mockery of the charge that the Government have stood cynically by, passively allowing unemployment to rise without check as though it was a deliberate element of our economic policy. Although the level of unemploy-

ment is by far the most worrying aspect on the domestic front it would be foolish to ignore the effect on demand of the measures which have already been taken.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, will he explain why my increase of £1,400 million in taxation produced an increase in unemployment during my two years and seven months as Chancellor of only 26,000, while his reductions have produced an increase in 17 months of over 300,000?

Mr. Barber: The right hon. Gentleman must take one of two views. Either he thinks that I have cut taxation too much or he thinks that I have cut it too little. Perhaps he will in due course say which.
As I was saying, it would be foolish to ignore the effect on demand of the measures which have already been taken—for instance, the rapid growth in hire-purchase credit, which is up 37 per cent. from the finance houses in the third quarter of the year, and new car registrations, which on present indications should rise to a total level this year of £1. ¼ million, the highest ever.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman not going to answer my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins)? When he does, will he answer this question? Did he or did he not indicate in July that in his view, as a result of the July measures, unemployment would be affected for the better in, as he put it, a couple of months? Does he think that that has happened?

Mr. Barber: I am coming shortly, as I said at the outset, to the question of the forecasts, but in answer to the other point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, I do not think, whatever may have happened during this past year, that he will deny that when he was Prime Minister unemployment also increased very considerably. Perhaps he will tell us one day whether he planned to ensure that unemployment at the time of the 1970 General Election was at the highest level in any June for 20 or 30 years.
I was listing for the benefit of the House some of the economic indicators which have to be borne in mind if the


House is to treat this matter seriously and reach a sensible conclusion. Exports, for example, are continuing to do extremely well, with an increase of no less than 7 per cent. in volume in the third quarter over the level of the first half. Private house building is also doing well. The House will have noticed—I hope with approval—from the figures issued yesterday, that the demand for engineering products, both at home and, even more, abroad, is encouraging. Certainly, there is every reason, on present indications, to endorse the estimate of a 4 to 4½ per cent. economic growth rate which I gave in July.

Mr. Atkinson: rose—

Mr. Barber: I mention these indicators—

Mr. Atkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No point of order arises on a right hon. or hon. Member not giving way. The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) knows that I have ruled on this already—incidentally, he should sit down while I am on my feet—and he should not try to get in what he is trying to say by putting a point of order to me. He knows perfectly well that the Chancellor—as, indeed, anyone else—will not give way to an intervention unless he is willing to do so. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think that I am dealing too harshly with him, but the rules of the House must be obeyed.

Mr. Atkinson: I honestly believe that you are being very prejudiced at the moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am raising a point of order. I am seeking your advice on this matter. Is it not courtesy, and part of the rules of debate in this House, that when an hon. Member seeks to put a question to a right hon. or hon. Member, particularly if that person is speaking from the Front Bench, for him to indicate whether he will give way or not? Is it usual for a right hon. or hon. Member just to continue speaking, as the Chancellor is doing? Could you not give him some advice about rules of debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that none

of that whatever is a point or order for me. What the Chancellor does is entirely up to him. [Interruption.] The whole House knows that the Chancellor is just as good a Parliamentarian as anyone else and that he will do what he thinks to be the right thing.

Mr. Barber: rose—

Mr. Atkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Barber: It does no good to the country or to the unemployed for the hon. Gentleman and some of his Friends to try to break up the debate.
I have given these various indications and I have given this assessment not in any spirit of complacency, but because I thought it right in this debate to take account of the action which has already been taken. The House will recall that when I spoke in the debate on the Address a fortnight ago, I announced that, in addition to the additional public expenditure programmes already approved in order to provide employment in various industries, we were also looking at the scope for bringing forward capital expenditure by some of the nationalised industries. I can now inform the House of the results of the review so far.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order. This is a serious point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am entirely convinced that in his very tedious speech the Chancellor is now getting his pages mixed up and is re-reading one of the pages with which he began.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Barber: On this problem of unemployment, chosen deliberately for today's debate by the official Opposition, the country will take note of the sort of interventions which we have had from hon. Members opposite. The unemployed will despise the sort of interjection which they have made.
I can now inform the House of the results of this review so far. I should mention that the review has been conducted subject to two conditions. First, our object has been to bring forward projects which could be put in hand without delay and which would create employment over the next two years


without involving large additional claims on expenditure over a long period beyond those two years. The reason for this condition is that we are determined not to undertake in the years ahead excessive commitments of a kind which would put at risk our strategy for sustained growth.

Mr. William Ross: No fear of that.

Mr. Barber: The second condition has been that the projects must also satisfy all the normal investment criteria for the nationalised industries, with the exception of the matter of phasing.
I will deal first with the nationalised industries. Arrangements which are now in hand are intended to bring forward into the two years 1972–73 and 1973–74 capital expenditure of about £100 million. Items which will now be brought forward by the nationalised industries include capital expenditure on a new power station, expenditure on distribution and transmission by the Gas and Electricity Boards, and capital works expenditure by the National Coal Board. The British Railways Board will bring forward plans to replace rolling stock for use on the Southern and Eastern Regions' commuter lines into London. This will help to maintain employment in the board's workshops at York and to generate employment elsewhere in the North.
The British Railways Board will also bring forward plans for the building of two new ferries to replace existing ships on Sealink services to the Isle of Wight, and the Scottish Transport Group is considering the possibility of advacing a new ferry for use on the Clyde. As part of these arrangements infrastructure grant is being made available to the London Transport Executive so that it will be able to bring forward orders for new trains for use on the Northern Line.
The new power station will be constructed at Ince in Cheshire and negotiations for the placing of the order will start at once. In addition to work at the site, this should provide employment for engineering industries in the North-East. In some cases there will be special payments to the nationalised industries in respect of the additional costs incurred as a result of accelerating these projects.

Mr. Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Barber: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman. However, I have some more points to put to the House which will interest individual hon. Members and their constituencies.

Mr. Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the proposed closure of railway workshops has been put off by direction of the Government? Secondly, can he give a guarantee that the ferries to be built will be built in the United Kingdom and the one for Scotland in Scotland? He will remember that the last was built in Italy, which was no great help to the employment situation in Scotland.

Mr. Barber: I have more announcements to make. I have been on my feet for more than half an hour already as the result of interventions. This is an important debate and I do not propose to give way again. I do not intend to answer detailed questions, which should be put to the various Departmental Ministers responsible.
In addition to the nationalised industry programmes, we have also approved further expenditure by Government Departments designed to provide additional employment and amounting to roughly £60 million over the next two years. The larger part of this consists of about £50 million of work on road maintenance and improvement, most of which will be to accelerate the implementation of the recommendations of the Marshall Committee on Road Maintenance. This is additional to the roads expenditure already announced as part of the infrastructure works programme for the development and intermediate areas.
The total also includes £4½ million of additional defence expenditure, including an order for more than 100 Bulldog light aircraft for the R.A.F., which will help the employment position at Scottish Aviation's Prestwick factory. An order will also be advanced for a Scottish fisheries protection vessel.
It has also been decided to accelerate the payments of amounts arising from the former investment grant scheme. This will bring forward roughly £10 million into 1971–72 and £15 million into 1972–73.
This does not necessarily exhaust the possibilities for bringing forward public expenditure, but the proposals which I


have announced today, coming on top of the public expenditure measures previously announced, amount to a considerable increase. But the important point about the actual proposals is that by acting in this way we shall be increasing demand substantially in the near future—over the next couple of years or so—without prejudicing the longer term.
This afternoon the House was treated to the spectacle of the right hon. Lady, who served in the most restrictionist Government of modern times, criticising the present Government's policies. What are the Opposition's criticisms? There are those on the left who continue to mouth, parrot fashion, the accusation that the Tory Government have cruelly set out to create unemployment as a deliberate instrument of economic policy. They know it to be untrue and the country knows it to be untrue and the more they repeat it, the more lacking in credibility they become.
Then there are those on the right who, like the right hon. Member for Stechford, who is to wind up the debate for the Opposition, deploy a more sophisticated, and, if I may say so, a slightly more élitist argument. To the right hon. Gentleman the criticism is that over the past year the situation has been misjudged. I would only say that I am now chided for having changed my mind in the course of the year—for having taken a different view in July from the one I took in March. No doubt because I have announced new measures today the same criticism will be made again.
Let me say quite clearly that we on this side of the House will continue to adapt our policies to the changing circumstances of the time. To act in that way is no embarrassment to me; it is sheer common sense. It is a pity that right hon. Gentlemen opposite did not adapt their policy a little more from time to time. It is a pity that they did not have the good sense to scrap S.E.T., which was specifically designed to make labour more expensive.
Of course, I never expected unemployment to rise as it has, neither did the right hon. Member for Stechford, and he is on record as making that clear. Let me repeat what I said when I became Chancellor of the Exchequer: wherever the changing circumstances and the fore-

casts warrant it, I shall not hesitate to take the appropriate action and to take it at any time during the financial year.
The whole nation is concerned about the level of unemployment, but this Motion is a charade. It should and will be rejected.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: If there is one thing which I find more gloomy this afternoon than the unemployment situation it is the speech of the Chancellor. If it is true that full employment is the principal aim of this Government, then, judging by results, it must be one of the most incompetent Governments of modern times. In my view, all one can say about the new measures announced by the Chancellor today is that they are too little and too late, like most of his other actions in his present office.
I do not want to follow any of the Chancellor's party political arguments. I would make four brief, simple and practical suggestions of what I think he could and should do in the present emergency—because that is what it is. The first thing he should do—

Mr. T. W. Urwin: —is to resign.

Mr. Jay: Assuming that the right hon. Gentleman does not resign, the first thing he should do is to cut the Bank Rate by at least 2 per cent. from its present 5 per cent. on Thursday this week. I do not know why he has not done so yet. I cannot remember any time since 1926 when all factors and relevant arguments cried out together as they do now for lower Bank and interest rates. We have, at the same time, a huge payments surplus, heavy unemployment, low investment and an embarrassing in-flow of funds. An immediate cut in Bank Rate would help in all four directions at once.
Secondly, the Chancellor should make a substantial cut in indirect taxation, including the food levies which the Government have introduced. If the Government want to halt the rise in wages and prices, that is an obvious, simple and effective way of doing it.
Thirdly, in the development areas the Government should launch a new programme of advance factories on a substantial scale. Roads, power stations and


school building, although helpful, are not the essentials in the unemployment areas. What they need is manufacturing industry that gives lasting employment. Advance factories have the great additional merit that they give employment precisely where it is most acutely needed. Of the 234 such factories built since 1964, when the previous Government initiated the programme, over 180 have already, despite these conditions, been allocated to firms. Yet no new advance factory programme has been launched in the development areas since March, 1970.
Fourthly, the Government should restore the investment grants now, with full preference for the development areas. In the present emergency the Government should forget the stale, partisan argument that we have heard about investment grants, and recognise what everyone, both in industry and in Whitehall, now knows, that the abandonment of investment grants was a disaster and that strong new incentives are now needed to get investment going again.
All these decisions together, taken now, would transform the outlook for employment, and nothing less will do.

5.8 p.m.

Earl of Dalkeith: We have just heard an admirably brief and pointful speech from the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). I only hope that I can emulate him in delivering an equally brief, pointful speech. I shall not comment on his four points, because no doubt these will be dealt with in the winding-up speech later on. I was, however, interested in what the right hon. Gentleman said about advance factories. In that connection, I was saddened to see on the outskirts of London recently a large factory with a notice on it saying "To let". It seems to me that if something like this can happen to large factories on the outskirts of London, in a highly desirable area, the prospects are not as rosy as they might otherwise be for development areas. Naturally, firms go first to these readily accessible vacant sites.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker for giving me this opportunity to break my rather prolonged and enforced silence in this debate. Ever since I became involved in politics I

have had two flags nailed metaphorically to the top of my mast—one, better housing; the other, full employment. It is with a sorrowful heart that I approach this debate today with the figures for unemployment at their present tragically high level. I hope that a debate of this kind will serve some useful purpose, although I feel that this is always questionable. Some hon. Member might propose an inspired solution not already thought of or suggested, although this is, perhaps, a little unlikely. Another hon. Member might draw attention to what he believes to be past errors of previous Governments or of the present Government in the hope that they will not repeat them but will learn by their lessons.
There is, too, the obvious opportunity for party political point-scoring, and I have no doubt that we shall have the usual flow of this today, however sterile that might be.
I would not try to be harsh with anyone in this respect because I have been guilty of the same thing myself in the past, not least at the time of the last General Election when I repeatedly drew attention to the fact that we were suffering from the highest post-war unemployment. It is sad when it is suggested that the present unemployment figures are the result of deliberate policy on the part of this Government. Such accusations are unworthy of those who make them. If the day ever dawned when I suspected that the Tory Party was no longer dedicated to a policy of full employment I should resign from it forthwith. I have said it before, and I have no hesitation in saying it again, that high unemployment is the most inhuman extravagance in which any Government can indulge. The temptation obviously always arises on these occasions for each party to pass the blame to the other. This, too, is a sterile pastime and one which sickens the majority of our population.
My own assessment, which I advance with great humility, is that I believe that both Labour and Conservative Governments are partly to blame for the present high unemployment figures. They have both to some extent miscalculated the timing of reflation and the amount of reflation which should take place. I suspect that they both made this mistake


for identical reasons. I never had the opportunity of poking my nose behind the scenes of power in the Treasury, but I imagine that every Treasury Minister is surrounded by a bevy of high-powered advisers, men of great wisdom, double firsts, bankers, high-powered economists, civil servants and a great many other business men in and out of politics. I am sure that all these people have been giving successive Chancellors the same advice, partly out of terror that they might find themselves being accused once again of landing the Government in another period of "stop-go", which became so thoroughly unpopular before.
It would take a most brazen and arrogant Chancellor to go against the advice of such weighty opinion, even if he did feel that the time had come for the reflation of the economy sooner than his advisers suggested. I would not for a moment suggest that my right hon. Friend could be described as being brazen or arrogant, any more than his predecessor the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins).
In blaming both Governments for being partly responsible for our present sad state of affairs, I draw attention to the fact that I am not being wise after the event. I am on record as having urged the Government of the day some three years ago to start reflating. I have no better witness than the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), whom I see sitting on the Front Bench opposite. It was one of those rare occasions when I found myself chanting in unison with what I do not disrespectfully refer to as the "Heffer brigade". We were urging the Government at that time to start some measure of reflation.
One reason for the reluctance of these varied advisers to encourage the then Government to begin reflating was the terror of being accused of starting another round of "stop-go" I cannot help feel-ling that even "stop-go" is better than permanent "stop". This is something from which we have suffered for so long. No doubt we shall be told that one of the reasons why we have not reflated faster and sooner is that what we are aiming for is real boom and real growth, not an artificial boom. I hope that those who

give this explanation are right even though the present high unemployment figures are a great price to pay for this.
To divert briefly to more parochial matters, I take this opportunity of reminding hon. Members that when things look bad for employment throughout the United Kingdom they are invariably much worse in Scotland. Anything which anyone can do to assist in this respect is welcome. I was pleased when earlier this year the Government relented to some extent in their absurd policy of excluding Edinburgh from development areas status. At that time Edinburgh was the only small area between John o' Groats and York which had been so excluded. The Government relented to the extent of making it an intermediate area. What a pity they could not have gone the whole hog and made it the same as the rest of Scotland. This is an example of cheeseparing which is not really worthy of our Ministers, and I hope the Government will think again and allow Edinburgh to have the same status as the rest of Scotland.
Turning to general affairs, we are all delighted to hear the announcements that the Chancellor made this afternoon, coming as they do on top of the recent announcement about handing out £160 million to local authorities, £60 million of which is to go to Scotland. Many of the measures announced today will bring immediate benefits and bridge the gap. From the long-term point of view I hope that the uncertainty about joining the Common Market will have some effect on encouraging industry to get cracking on serious investment programmes. No doubt industries have been holding back to see what will happen, and I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the Lord Mayor's Banquet exhorting businessmen and manufacturers to use this opportunity to invest and stressing that the right time is now. This could go a long way towards providing new jobs and stimulate the construction industry.
I come now to the subject of lame ducks, about which no doubt more will be said today. Clearly every lame duck has to be judged and assessed on its own individual merits. We do not want to see a Government irresponsibly pouring other people's money down a bottomless well. At the same time it is worth


while bearing in mind that because for so many years "profit" has been a dirty word in the English language there are today rather more lame ducks than there deserve to be. This is also due to the fact that for many years we have had a penal taxation system. I am a bit of a lame duck myself at the moment, and I cannot help feeling that it is rather better to encourage lame ducks to fly rather than to die. I hope that with that humanitarian outlook which is always the byword of the Tory Party we shall see rather more encouragement being given to some ducks who are lame through no fault of their own.
For a time I was very tempted to abstain from voting tonight because I am so shocked by the high unemployment figures. There is one good reason why I will not abstain but will instead support my right hon. Friend, and that is because it is my conviction that this Government alone have the qualifications to rescue the country from the difficult situation in which it finds itself.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me at this stage because it gives me an unexpected and great pleasure to welcome the noble Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) back to the House of Commons and to say once again how much we admire the courage which has brought him here. We were all pleased to hear him in such excellent form and to see that he has lost none of his parliamentary tricks.
The noble Member starts with the high-minded rejection of anything like party political debate; he hopes that the Government will look after lame ducks, but I thought that he discharged one or two rather effective shots at the Chancellor himself. The noble Member may not approve of the Labour Party or even the Liberal Party taking part in party political debates, but I am glad that he has not inhibited himself in attacking his own Government and even hinting that he might abstain. We are immensely glad to have him back, and I agree with a great deal of what he said.
This afternoon the Chancellor of the Exchequer started and finished by acknowledging that his economic policy has been a failure. He made it crystal

clear, as he has before, that he is shocked, as we all are, by the level of unemployment. Therefore, it cannot be wrong for the House to examine his future plans with more than ordinary care.
I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has given up the claim that the Tory Party and Government have any consistent policy. We used to be told that there was a thing called Tory philosophy. We are now told that the Tories play the economic instrument by ear and that, as the Chancellor said at the end of his speech, they would not be ashamed to go back on their policy and start in other directions. We used to be told that this was being "blown off course". I remember how much play there was with that phrase. As the Leader of my party has suggested, we are now in for a period of Government by delayed shock.
There is a fundamental flaw in the Chancellor's thinking, and he owes it to the House to explain what he means. His contention in each economic debate is that the reason for high unemployment is the grossly inflationary policies pursued by the Labour Government. To begin with, it has not usually been thought that inflation was a cause of unemployment. One can see that in certain circumstances it might be. However, on the whole unemployment has usually been caused by deflation, and inflation has been thought to be the remedy.
Having pronounced this as the cause of unemployment, the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that it will be cured by a further burst of inflation. I know that he calls it reflation, but calling inflation reflation is like calling a rat catcher a rodent operator. If we get into this situation by inflation it is for the Chancellor to explain why he thinks we can spend ourselves out of it without getting into other troubles. Part of his argument seems to be that, while cost inflation is wicked, demand inflation is all right. I do not follow this. It is demand inflation which again and again has got us into trouble—over the balance of payments, for instance. It is notorious that if we suddenly have a large increase in demand one of the things which will most certainly happen is that there will be a large increase in imports and we shall be back in a situation which we know only too well.
No one should be under any doubt about what the Chancellor is doing. He takes pride in it. He says that this is the largest inflation which any Chancellor has attempted for 50 years. We are told that hire purchase is up 37 per cent., that new car registrations are up 35 per cent., that consumer expenditure is up 6 per cent., and that the retail price index is up 9·9 per cent. When the Conservative Party was in Opposition and the retail price index rose by 7 per cent., the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) described it as an explosion of nuclear proportions. I do not know what 9·9 per cent. represents, but the position is a total reversal of what the Government used to preach.
If the Government's position now is that we need inflation, it makes complete nonsense of all the business about Rolls-Royce and Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. In those days we were told that what was needed was a slap of firm Government, that lame ducks must go to the wall, and so on. What is happening now is that they are spending more on Upper Clyde than would have been necessary if they had never allowed it to go bankrupt. Furthermore, they are prepared to take pleasure in it. If their present policy is to increase the amount of money and credit in circulation, what is the sense in abolishing free school milk? What we are in for is not the slap of firm Government but random slaps of infirm Government.
I question whether we can spend our way out of unemployment. I hope in some ways that we can. If we can, it makes nonsense of the Government's arguments about how we got into it. There are certain new features in the situation which the House would be well advised to look at. Whatever measures the Government take will not, alas, have any effect on unemployment in the next month or two. What we are going to determine is whether we can get the economy right in a year or two and whether, by then, we shall have full and useful employment.
It is probable that industry has been over-manned and is now laying off men whom it does not intend to take back. I am not sure that merely increasing the amount of money and credit in circulation will increase the amount of employ-

ment in certain important industries. It is all too likely that unless we take some measures to forestall it, we shall get back to a situation of demand-induced inflation and we shall be back in a squeeze, without having cured unemployment.
The Government have rejected the possibility that we ought to accept floating exchange rates. I think that they are wrong. One thing which makes industry reluctant to take full advantage of the immense amount of money and credit being pumped into the economy is that it sees now all too well that, in a year or two, there is likely to be a squeeze and its new investment, and so on, will find no market for its products. If industry was assured that we would not again attempt to defend the pound at an unreal value, I think that it would find more confidence in the future.
I do not believe that the cure for unemployment lies in encouraging unproductive expenditure. This was tried and rejected a long time ago in what was called the Speenhamland system, whereby men were employed to dig holes and to fill them up again. Nor do I believe in expenditure on the higher technology for the sake of the higher technology. We have to be certain that the Government's measures are being directed to effective and productive expenditure. We should bear in mind that one of the chronic troubles of this country is the failure to direct resources to productive work. They have been wasted on prestige and nonproductive expenditure for what I should describe as totally mistaken motives.
We all want to see some increase in investment. I have suggested that flexible exchange rates would be of some help, because they would give confidence. The Goverment should also go back to investment grants. I agree with the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) on that matter.
The Government must also declare a holiday in the constant alteration of the tax system and methods. There is a grave danger that the whole system will break down. I am inundated with letters from constituents saying that they cannot find out what their tax is, and when they write to the Exchequer it admits that it is very much behind. I do not blame the Inland Revenue. I think that successive Governments have put an almost impossible burden upon it. It is a serious


matter that industry and ordinary people should have to spend so much time struggling with tax changes.
The main failure of the Government lies in regional policy. An interesting article in the Financial Times points out that contrary to general impression, the difference between the regions of high unemployment in Britain and regions not so designated is much less than the difference between equivalent regions within the Common Market. The Government's measures have made the development areas far less attractive for industry. Indeed, it is relatively more attractive to go to the development areas in Europe as against the non-development areas in Europe than in this country. This is an extremely serious matter at a time when there is great unemployment in the development areas. Unless the Government can put it right—investment grants are one way to do it—their measures will not be effective.
I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North that the situation in Scotland is crucial, though my part of Scotland is not suffering from such a high rate of unemployment as is prevalent elsewhere. What the Government have done is to shake confidence in the whole build-up of the development areas. There is a complete lack of confidence about whether the differentiation between these areas will be maintained, and this is a very serious matter indeed.
The problem has to be cured now. There is a lot to be said for encouraging devolution, taking decision-making away from the centre and pushing Government industries to these areas. Let the Government be under no misapprehension. The situation in Scotland is very much on a see-saw, and in places such as the Clyde depression about the future can be felt by anyone visiting the area.
I was glad to hear some of the Chancellor's proposals, but the Government should pay even more attention to building up the infrastructure. In my constituency, one difficulty in the way of getting new employment is the fact that there is insufficient housing. If we go into the Common Market, it is vital to get on with the terminals on the Clyde and the project Ocean Span, or the bridge, as it is sometimes called, for enabling Scottish trade to flow direct to

the Continent. I wonder whether the Secretary of State for Scotland has heard about the Chancellor's proposals? If he has, the sooner he gives the go-ahead to improve the services in my constituency, and the sooner he agrees to pay something towards freight rates, the better. So far he has been stalling on these issues as though the Government's policies have not been altered.
The Government should distinguish in favour of industries which are directly able to provide employment. The Post Office is a vital service and one of social importance. I shall be sorry to see the Post Office indulging in technological experiments and not getting down to the basic fact that it is necessary to keep the postman going and to pay him a proper rate for his job. Other industries—for example, fishing—are of the greatest importance.
I want to mention one or two measures which have been mentioned before but which seem to have been forgotten. When he was in Opposition, the right hon. Member for Mitcham made a rather effective plea for what he called a more sophisticated employment policy, and it was mentioned today by the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). What has happened to the plans for better retraining, for a more sophisticated register of unemployed, and so on?
Second, there are the proposals associated with the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), who I am glad to see is present today. He has outlined them before, and it looks as though he will do so again today. In the interests of brevity, I shall leave him to do so. The right hon. Gentleman made some proposals, and I have no doubt that he is a man who is not easily put off. I shall therefore miss out part of my speech to allow the right hon. Gentleman to put forward his proposals.
Two other matters have been mooted which seem worthy of further investigation. My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) has often asked what would be the effect of reducing the retirement age and paying the old-age pension earlier than it is paid now. I think I am right in saying that if the retirement age were brought down to 60 for men, it would cost about £750 million. That may be more than the


Government can face. But the retirement age perhaps should be somewhat reduced, because we have to accept that what we have talked about for some time is now coming about. There is going to be a real problem because it is now possible to produce wealth with less labour. The situation is bound to arise in which there will be, I do not say increased leisure, but increased lack of employment. This may be a matter which we have to face as something that is basically built into an industrial society. Technical change and the power of tools have changed the demand for labour. One way of dealing with the problem is to reduce the retirement age, apart from putting up the existing pension.
What about post-war credits? It would do the Government's standing a considerable amount of good if, while they are giving away money, they were to repay post-war credits. The Government's proposals may be in the right direction, but I am worried about their own logic. I am concerned in case we are building up a demand inflation which will lead us into trouble in about 18 months' time. I am concerned about the way in which extra money is put into the economy. I am not sure that we have grasped the new situation.
Nor am I sure that all the matters which have been brought forward are really economically justified, but I take it that some may be. There are other measures which I have tried to outline, and I should like to conclude with a quotation from the right hon. Member for Mitcham which I think is pertinent. In winding up a similar debate when in Opposition, he said:
What will Ministers do? We do not want excuses, because the facts, when compared with the promises, are inexcusable … We just want, for a change, some plain truth and some hard, properly-thought-out action."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1970; Vol. 795, c. 225.]
I stress the words "properly thought out". We may be getting some action, but is it properly thought out?

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Marples: It is a pleasure to follow the former Leader of the Liberal Party, who is a Scotsman, and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith),

who is also a Scotsman. The only reason why I have the temerity to stand on my feet now as an Englishman is that I was a regimental sergeant major in the London Scottish. More than that, I was probably the only Englishman in the unit.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is no use asking men to dig holes and fill them up again and give them money for doing that useless job. I come from a family which knew unemployment. My father worked as a foreman at Metropolitan Vickers, and he had to stand off his own brother-in-law at 24 hours' notice. Unemployment is not just a question of money. It is not a question of being frightened or disillusioned. It is a question of not being wanted and of nobody caring, and the person unemployed loses heart and his guts. That is the real point about unemployment. One has no dignity, and I know from experience what that means.
But I want to deal with something rather different from what we are debating at the moment. We are debating the short-term policy. That is: what should we do in the short term to provide employment? We may argue about the measures, but there is too much emphasis on the short term. We tend to discuss and cook à la minute.
What are the problems? Let us deal with them today. I did that as the Minister concerned when it came to London's traffic. Today there is a Motion of censure against the Government on unemployment. The first Motion of censure moved by the Labour Party when I became the Minister of Transport was against me for not solving some of the difficulties of urban traffic congestion. But the Motion was a bit too late because by the time we came to debate it the Government had taken over London's traffic as a "pink zone" and traffic was moving fast. But it was a case of a short-term policy; that is, cooking à la minute. All I could do was to make use of the Roman streets, and do it fast. It was the best that I could do. It was the only thing that I could do for a short-term solution.
But what about the long-term solution? I did something which I should like hon. Members to consider. I thought, in the short-term, that all I had done was to


annoy many householders by moving extra heavy traffic down their streets and creating more noise and more smell.
On the other hand, how could I tackle the long-term solution? We in this House always think of short-term solutions, because we are here for only five years at a maximum, and sometimes less. We therefore tend to think only in the short term. Another reason for thinking short term is that we do not get credit for long-term proposals. So for my long-term solution on traffic I started by reading every book by anyone who had long-term experience of traffic. I found that the best book was written by a Colin Buchanan. So I asked him to set up a working party to consider what we were going to do to re-build the cities to come to terms with the motor car. He produced a report and a splendid book.
I was proud when on 3rd November Colin Buchanan got the International Road Federation's Man of the Year Award. The citation said:
In recognition of his comprehensive and original work on the relationship between traffic, roads and towns which has had a major and beneficial impact on planning and design for movement in the environment in the United Kingdom and throughout the world.
I mention that only because in this debate most hon. Members will be talking only about the present and the next year or so. That is quite right. I hope that they succeed in finding a solution. But I want to do more than that. I want to talk about the long-term solution, about what will happen in the next 10 years on unemployment if we are to avoid short-term remedial measures.
The next 10 years will, I believe, witness the most astonishing expansion in the scale and scope of what I call change. By change I mean new products replacing old ones, new manufacturing methods replacing old ones, and new jobs replacing old ones, and a new life entirely replacing the old one—in the next 10 years. I may be wrong, but, at any rate, my words will be reported.
It is not so much the fact that these things are new as the pace and rate of change itself which will hit us for six. We do not know how to calculate the rate of change. The last 20 or 30 years have seen change, but that will be peanuts, compared to the next 10 years, when

we shall be facing a really violent change and a difficult situation.
Basically, the problem is how to cope with the avalanche of change. There are two conflicting elements here. First, if there is to be change, how does one get human beings to accept it? In 1811, or thereabouts, we had the Luddites and a very slow rate of change. We had chaos from the workers throughout the country. That brought repressive measures against the workers. But they were simply frightened of losing their jobs because of the change. That is the first element—the reluctance of human beings to accept change.
The second element is technology. Will the change that technology produces be forced upon us? Can we slow it down? If not, how do we reconcile the conflicting elements of human beings who do not want change and of technology which will force it? Let me take technology first, not because it is the most important—human beings are the most important—but because we have not been able to stop technological change in the past, and we shall not be able to do so now or in the future. Whether we like it or not, it is a fact.
There are many examples to prove this. One is the Post Office. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetlands (Mr. Grimond) said that we must produce postmen. But, of course, that will not happen in the modern world. I hope to see what they are doing about replacing postmen in America in a month's time. Their principle is this. Television can be brought to one's home by cable, as is done by Rediffusion in this country. But via that cable one can send newspapers which can be printed in the home. One can send letters through the cable also to be printed in the home. The whole technology will change. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman thinking that he can go back 100 years. He cannot. Other things will happen.

Mr. Grimond: Of course technology will change lives, but it must be useful technology, useful for human beings. Has the right hon. Gentleman costed this? As a director of a newspaper, I have had it looked into and the cost is astronomical.

Mr. Marples: But the newspaper proprietors have been saying that for a long


time and they are still going down the drain in Fleet Street. They must recognise the facts of life—and not many Liberals tend to do that.
Another example is the advent of the atom. The man who discovered it was, Rutherford. In 1933 he said that the energy in the nucleus would never be released. Nine years later in 1942, it was released. Three years after that we had Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So inventors do not know what they are inventing or what the end will be, but they will continue to invent and force their inventions on the rest of the population. This will happen whether we like it or not. Consequently, there will be an end to stability. Instead, there will be rapid changes in which situations will be fluid and volatile. Peace will really depart and there will be no permanence.
But there will be advantages. There will be huge resources from a much smaller expenditure of labour. Oddly enough, everything which is happening in the modern world is an attempt to stop men working and at the same time provide more resources. The aim is not to give them employment but to give them perhaps leisure and perhaps something else.
In one of the best remarks that I think he has ever made, U Thant said:
The central stupendous truth about developed economies today is that they can have—in anything but the shortest run—the kind and scale of resources they decide to have. It is no longer the resources that limit decisions; it is the decisions that make the resources. This is the most fundamental change, perhaps the most revolutionary, man has ever known.
This has been so for quite some time. I mentioned this to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He then asked me to make the Conservative Political Centre speech on this I did make the speech and also produced a pamphlet on it—so he is quite aware of this problem.
Whatever we may say, this progress will go ahead at a fast or a slow pace. But what I want is progress to go ahead at a controllable pace. That is the key to success.
As for human beings, the other element in my equation, the majority of them hate and detest change. I mentioned my own father. He literally trembled for

about six weeks when he was offered another job with another firm. It meant he had to leave Metropolitan Vickers. But he did not want to leave his home. It was only a very small home but he liked it. He did not want to move away from the club where he played bowls with the same people every Saturday and Sunday. He did not want to shift. My mother, who was more adventurous, wanted him to shift, and there were enormous rows between them. Very few people like to change.
I know from being a Minister of Transport that people resist change. They want the benefits of change but not the difficulties of change. This is a human failing. It is not wrong. It is natural. Human beings are creatures of habit. They want stability, but in the next 10 years they will be faced with instability. They want permanence, but in the next 10 years they will be faced with insecurity.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I have been sitting here in absolute patience listening to the very philosophical argument which the right hon. Gentleman is developing about future change. Since he comes from an area which has 53,500 workers unemployed at this moment—over 7 per cent. of the working population and well over 10 per cent. of the male workers in Liverpool—would he like to say what he proposes to deal with the immediate question of solving their problems—apart from some future philosophical argument about likely changes?

Mr. Marples: I thank the hon. Gentleman for sitting down to let me intervene in his speech. What happens in the North-West is that I have tried to get firms into my constituency in Wallasey, and I got them. I brought Cadbury's in, and Squibbs, a pharmaceutical firm. When Cadbury's now have vacant space in its factory I find firms will not rent the vacant space. The reason is that they do not want to go to Merseyside because of the very difficult labour relations there. I am telling the honest truth. It is not popular, but it is my problem. Even now I am trying to negotiate with Cadbury-Schweppes to get more employment. I am getting co-operation from them, but I cannot get anyone from outside to come to Merseyside.

Mr. Heffer: How many strikes has Cadbury's had?

Mr. Marples: It has had one or two. It was not that so much as the fact that any civil engineering contractors—

Mr. Heffer: Do not deceive the House.

Mr. Marples: I do not want to get side-tracked into—[Interruption.] Anyone in this House knows Merseyside is a difficult area, but they also know that it is the hon. Member's area as well. But I will not let him side-track me. This is a favourite ploy of his. When he says that he is patient, that is a terminological inexactitude. I am trying to make a serious contribution—[Interruption.] I do not speak in this House as much as the hon. Gentleman does. He never stops. I hope he will be a good boy and listen for a change.
In peacetime people do not normally wish to change—I do not blame them—hut in wartime they will accept change because it is a question of survival. Also, there is a common enemy. If some Post Office workers are made redundant in peacetime it will be said that one is hitting at a certain class, and those affected will say, "Why not make somebody else change as well?".
The problem, therefore, is to reconcile these two schools of thought—the minority who are willing to change, and who will win, and the human beings who do not want to change. In an effort to make this reconciliation, I put forward a suggestion which I trust the Government will consider carefully. I do so in the knowledge that it is not necessarily the job of the politician to work out the details and do things. It is our job to see that things are done.
I would like to have something similar to what the Buchanan study group produced, but on a much larger scale. We need a working party with no vested interests whatever attached to its members. The group would look at the unemployment and employment problem in the longer term—in terms of, say, 10 years ahead. Its members would be full-time, as Buchanan's were. They would be paid, and the working party would be completely independent.
The membership should comprise a variety of talents and nationalities. Among them should be, for example, Swedes,

Americans and Indians. Although the problems faced in India are rather different from ours, we have some lessons to learn from such quarters. If such a wide spectrum of opinion and expertise were brought together, we could have a working party similar to Buchanan's successful attempt.
But by itself, that will not be enough. In addition to a working party we must have a steering group. This group could meet the working party every couple of months to see what progress was being made. After all, it is not enough simply to give an order. One must see that it is carried out. But vested interests could come in on this steering group. For example, there could be people from industry, the trade unions, and academic spheres. They could come from other countries. They could see what the working party had studied and make suggestions.
In other words, I want the working party to be independent, as Buchanan was, though Buchanan also had a steering group, the chairman of which was Lord Crowther. But I want the steering group to get advice from people representing all sections of industry and other suitable walks of life.
I trust that this long-term suggestion will be considered in depth by the Government, because it is clear that we shall not solve the problems that we face in a minute or in a few months. We must look years ahead and not simply discuss crises as and when they occur. Of course there are bound to be arguments about the instant effects of inflation and deflation, but it really is clear that everything we are trying to do now is putting men out of work and into retirement. It must be worth having at least one serious study into the next 10 years or so, rather than continue arguing on a crisis-by-crisis basis. The present system is not good enough.
My suggestion will have to be considered by the Government. As I said, it is for back benchers to put forward ideas. The Floor of the House is really a talking shop where the Government receive ideas and criticism. But the real power of action lies with the occupants of the Government Front Bench. I hope they will consider my suggestion for a long-term study, and I hope it will prove


as rewarding as the Buchanan Report proved to be.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Despite the provocation which the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) provided for my hon. Friends, I take pleasure in speaking after him.
I was impressed by the courage and refreshing nature of the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith), whose contribution was in marked contrast to that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who made a bleak speech.
The Chancellor adduced the usual sophisticated economic argument and made desperate efforts to justify the catalogue of policies which he has enunciated, which he has tried but which have failed. He cannot persuade the nation that the Government are taking seriously the problem of rising unemployment.
Instead of conducting an economic analysis of the situation, I wish to identify the problem as far as it affects the people I seek to represent. I was grateful that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) referred to the regional problem of escalating unemployment and instanced the North-West. I have 136,444 reasons for considering it a privilege to speak in this debate, because that is the number of people in my part of the world who are demanding action from the Government to deal with this problem.
In percentage terms, the increase in unemployment in the North-West is a matter for great concern. In human terms, the increase is causing positive alarm to my constituents. There are as many people unemployed in the North-West as there are in the whole of Scotland and nearly three times the number unemployed in Wales.
In the Greater Manchester and North-West area in September, 1971, the number wholly unemployed had increased by 52 per cent. over September, 1970. In the 12 months between 1970 and 1971, 72 firms closed in this area, creating 6,450 redundancies, and in the first three months of 1971 an additional 54 firms closed, creating 3,507 more redundancies. Thus, in a little over 12 months there

have been nearly 10,000 redundancies in the Greater Manchester area, one of the major provincial areas. In fact, in the North-West as a whole there have been 40,000 redundancies in a little over 12 months. The October, 1971, figures indicate that the number of redundancies is rising faster in this region than in any other.
Redundancy, rationalisation, restructuring, streamlining, shaking out—call it what one will—has played havoc with the basic industries in my part of the country. About 330,000 people found their livelihood in the textile industry of the North-West in 1951. By 1971, just two decades later, that force of 330,000 had slumped to a mere 98,000. Last year 26 mills closed, with a loss of 6,000 jobs. At the time of nationalisation the North-West Region had 75 coal mines employing 60,000 men; by 1971 the figures had fallen to 14 pits and 16,000 men.
Wherever one looks at heavy industry, the same pattern emerges. Just weeks ago 600 steel workers in my constituency lost their jobs, and the future employment of a further 900 is threatened. If the Irlam steelworks are closed, the steel industry in the Greater Manchester area will be virtually eliminated.
Against that background we should today have had from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a catalogue of positive action. In the short-term he should have announced, if he believes that which he says, that he is prepared to rethink his policies in the light of experience. The Government should have announced that they are substituting investment grants for their present policy of investment allowances. They should be looking at the liberalisation of their industrial development certificate policy and telling us of advance factories and training centres.
I am glad that the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) referred to long-term policy. Against the background of what is happening in the basic industries, and with escalating redundancies throughout industry, the time has now come to look at the factors which are responsible. We cannot stand by when another major industry, the Post Office, has just published a document, "The Restructuring of Postal Services", which envisages a further 25,000 redundancies.
It is all very well for the Minister and the Government to say that these redundancies will not create great difficulties because they will be taken care of by natural wastage, but it still means 25,000 fewer future employment prospects. The statistics I have provided for the textile, steel and coal-mining industries all tell the same story of escalating redundancies and unemployment.
Rather than the working party suggested by the right hon. Member for Wallasey I should like a Royal Commission to identify and examine the factors which are contributing to increasing unemployment and empowered by its terms of reference to indicate what action can be taken to alleviate these difficulties.
It is right that today we should examine the problem from many points of view. Regrettably, there are those who look at rising unemployment and escalating redundancies as merely a statistical exercise, but it is a very human problem as well. If I needed that fact brought home to me, I had it brought home at the weekend during a conversation with a young lady constituent who asked me whether I could do anything to get her father a job. She said, and it summed up the whole problem graphically: "Since Dad has been out of work, nothing has gone right in our house". This is a human problem. The whole family harmony and relationship is affected if the main breadwinner is out of work. Such a conversation as I have quoted illustrates the terribly demoralising effect of unemployment.
We are entering the season of good will and charity. Nearly one million people will have that much bleaker a Christmas than those who are in jobs. I hope that the Ministers and the Government as a whole will bear these facts in mind in approaching what is not only an economic but a very real human social problem.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) as he and I used to be part of what in this House are called the usual channels. The problems of his area are very much those of my own. Declining industry is one of the major factors in the general unemployment situation. The hon. Gentleman

suggested the establishment of a Royal Commission to ascertain the causes of unemployment, but a Royal Commission is not needed. We know the causes.
The hon. Gentleman spoke with obviously deep sincerity, and I assure him that no one on this side of the House fails to recognise that unemployment and redundancy are very serious matters for very many people in this season, as he says, of good will and cheer. We on this side do not regard the subject as a statistical exercise. We all want to find the answer to this enormous problem of our time, wherever we may sit.
A great deal has been said about the difference in the approach of the political parties to this subject. I, like other hon. Members, have taken part on many occasions, here and elsewhere, in straight political arguments. Today, like other hon. Members, I shall seek to avoid straight political arguments and try to face the realities of the situation for the Government, for the Opposition and for the unemployed.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said that we should never have unproductive expenditure. With that we all agree, but I felt like intervening to ask him what he meant by unproductive expenditure. No one sugests employing people to dig holes and then to fill them in again. One might say that improving the infrastructure of a development area was unproductive expenditure, but this is arguable. We have had to indulge in an enormous amount of this expenditure in an attempt to overcome our problems.
It is very true to say, and if we do not all realise it now it is time we did, that the real problem is that in modern times we can produce wealth with less labour. I have the honour to represent a constituency in a very famous industrial part of the country. In the years during which I have been a Member I have visited engineering plant, engineering concerns and so on, with regularity as part of my duty. My most recent visit was to one of the greatest shipbuilding yards in the world—Messrs. Swan Hunter and Wigham Richardson—where I was shown the latest development, costing £3 million. It was very inspiring to see this wonderful development, but I was told that it meant that fewer people would be


employed on the processes that that development was undertaking.
I find some of the points that have been made this afternoon a little difficult to follow. For instance, I do not see how the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) can say that the halving of S.E.T. has not helped the employment position. I believe that it has helped considerably. When first inflicted, the incidence of S.E.T. cost the North-East of England a lot of jobs. According to the North-East Development Council's statistical department, we lost 12,000 jobs in the first year of S.E.T. because of its incidence. I fail to see how halving it has increased unemployment.
By the same token, I found it very difficult to follow the right hon. Lady when she suggested that the restraining of wage claims—which the Government have done comparatively successfully during the past 12 months—has contributed to unemployment. Anyone who has any knowledge of industry and is visiting engineering concerns and small and large businesses will know at once, and will be told if he does not know, that heavy wage awards have meant the pruning of labour. The fact that it has made industry more efficient does not help us out of the enormous problem of unemployment.
I do not wish to go over ground which has already been covered, because I hope to be brief. The Government have done a very great deal to tackle the enormous problem of unemployment—which we inherited. I do not want to get into a political argument, but we inherited the problem. Unemployment did not begin in June, 1970. In the North-East of England unemployment doubled between 1966 and June, 1970. It is ludicrous to suggest that the present Government are responsible for the high level of unemployment. Of course they are not. Our reflationary measures have been not only substantial but extremely courageous, and there is considerable evidence that they are beginning to work.

Mr. Bob Brown: Where?

Mr. Elliott: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has made inquiries, but I have. Knowing that this debate was to take place this week, I took par-

ticular care to visit one of Newcastle-upon-Tyne's largest department stores at the weekend. I was assured by the managing director that retail sales had not only increased but had increased substantially as against this period last year. He was very grateful indeed for the halving of S.E.T., the reduction in purchase tax, and so on. Retail demand has improved.
The great difficulty in my part of the country, and the difficulty in the North-West, is that we are dependent in the main upon heavy industry, and it takes longer for reflation to show in heavy industry. I believe that it will show, and I welcome wholeheartedly my right hon. Friend's announcements today. I very much welcome the new power station to be built in Cheshire, with all the consequent work that this will mean for the heavy engineering and electrical industries of the North-East of England. I welcome the advancement of the Coal Board's development proposals and the railway proposals. I do not see that as unproductive development. It is something that was planned but which is being brought forward. We welcome this very much.
I am delighted that the North-East will see an improvement in its employment position as a result of today's announcements. I wish also to record the enormous pleasure it has given me to learn that the North-East is to have a substantial share in the recently announced naval building programme, and to learn of the social spending announcements yesterday. It is also good to know that the North-East, as I have often advocated, is helping itself to the limit of its ability.
I was delighted to read in The Times today that the chairman and director of the North-East Development Council have returned from the United States very optimistic about the possibility of bringing to Teesside an American company to develop an oil centre.
We are still weak in an all-important sphere of our employment problems. I refer to training. It is of considerable regret to me at this time that in our greatly increased number of training centres there are empty places. When the right hon. Member for Blackburn was Secretary of State with responsibility for employment I used to appeal for the


fullest possible inquiry in the development areas as to whether our training centres were meeting the needs particularly of new, incoming industry. We have never had sufficient training. We need to look harder at training, and not only retraining.
I know full well how difficult is the position of the skilled man of 50-plus who finds himself redundant, but we have many young people on the streets of Tyneside and other places at present who need training of some sort. It seemed somewhat ludicrous, almost ridiculous, that I should receive a letter recently from a constituent, which stated simply:
Why is it, in this city of high unemployment, when I advertised for a gardener I did not get a single reply?
When I was having breakfast one morning it seemed ridiculous to listen to the B.B.C. announcement that there was to be a march of the unemployed through the City of Newcastle, headed by a brass band and Mr. Vic Feather, followed by many thousands marching, when later, in the same broadcast and by the same announcer, I was told that in Sunderland—where there is a very high level of unemployment, I am sorry to say—certain bus services were being withdrawn because there was a shortage of drivers. It is impossible to obtain the services of a highly skilled shorthand-typist in the City of Newcastle. We need to look very hard at training, especially the training of our unemployed school leavers. I ask my right hon. Friend to examine this most carefully.
Finally, there is enormous hope in our present situation, however grim it may be.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: Would the hon. Gentleman give his source of information about the shortage of bus drivers in Sunderland? That is not the position as I understand it.

Mr. Elliott: The information was given to me by an announcer of the B.B.C., Newcastle-upon-Tyne. If I have the opportunity, perhaps later I may give the date.

Mr. Bagier: It is not so.

Mr. Elliott: The point was accepted when I made it at a meeting of the North East Development Council which took place in County Durham some time ago.

I am afraid that it is so, or was so at that time.
The message of hope for the development areas is that there has been a distinct improvement in the balance between heavy industry and light industry. This is what we must achieve throughout the country. No development area will prosper if our national economic policy is failing. Nor will it ever have a secure future unless we can obtain a better balance between our heavy and light industries and, therefore, become much less vulnerable than we have been in the past.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Lee: The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) and the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) made the point that we are now seeing far more productive labour than has been the case hitherto. In other words, they believe that we are now beginning to see the onset of technological unemployment. I agree that this is a vital element in the problem that we are now discussing.
I remember protesting on 6th May, 1970, from the other side of the House, that the figures we get from the Minister responsible for employment are almost pre-historic. We get no moral conception of what unemployment is about, or what is the irreducible minimum number of people changing jobs on each particular day, no matter what the day when the figure is taken. I protest again that the House is discussing this vital issue almost in the dark as to the nature of the unemployment we are seeing.
As regards technological unemployment, the answer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's rather complaining attiture may well be that he has done so much re-priming of the pump that the pump will not work; in other words, he is probably using the wrong measures.
The Chancellor listed the nationalised industries whose capital programme is to be brought forward and spoke about flexibility in his policies. This is the ultimate in flexibility, for only a few weeks ago the Government refused to allow the British Steel Corporation to proceed with the capital programme for which it had budgeted long ago. By so doing the Government helped to cause heavy unemployment at lrlam in my constituency.


It is no good the Chancellor seeking to describe his hurried fluctuations in policy as "flexible policies". The Government's confidence goes in the face of policies of the type they embarked upon during their first 12 months in office.
So great was the Government's obsession with the relationship between unemployment and the amount that trade unions could obtain in wage increases that the Government tried to out-Paish Professor Paish without taking into account the fact that their policies cannot be appropriate when the stage is reached at which the main wage negotiation takes place at the factory level or when employers decide that it is better to pay up than face the chaos of a strike.
The Government are now suffering from their policy of trying to emasculate the unions in the public sector, many of whose members are amongst the lowest paid in the land. At a time when efforts should be made to increase the purchasing power of the low-paid, the Government content themselves with giving tax remissions to the wealthier sections of the community. That will not do much good, because such people do not spend 100 per cent. of their income anyway.
If it were desired to embark upon a policy which would give more purchasing power, there would be something to be said for a holiday with National Insurance contributions and for a commensurate increase in employment benefits and retirement pensions, whose recipients spend 100 per cent. of what they get. This is what we should do at a time when it is desired to get the economy to tick over faster.
Again in this contradictory vein, at a time when the Government have been attacking lower-paid workers with the story, which we heard from the Chancellor again today, that unemployment can be related specifically to large wage increases, for the last six months—in other words, during the period in which unemployment has risen enormously—the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister have been boasting that they are getting down the rate of increase in income rises, and unemployment has risen to nearly 1 million. There is no consistency in the Government's argument that large wage increases cause

unemployment when the end product of their own policies is an increase in unemployment.
I regret it as much as anyone, but any trade union which is trying to break even for its members cannot accept an increase of less than 11 or 12 per cent.

Mr. Atkinson: Any trade union which accepted a smaller increase would be losing ground.

Mr. Lee: That is the present situation. I have criticised the Government for their refusal to accept a more ordered prices and incomes policy than they believe they can face because of the way in which they reacted to the Labour Government's policy. The Government are in a hopeless dilemma. If they really want to reprime the pump, the policies they have pursued by way of tax remissions on high incomes must be scrapped and unemployment must be tackled by putting into the pockets of those who spend 100 per cent. of their incomes a much greater reward than is the case now.

Mr. John Page: Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on a rise in incomes being lower than a rise in productivity? I am sure he wants to see incomes and the wealth of the community as a whole rise.

Mr. Lee: I want to see, as the hon. Gentleman does, wealth and production increase rapidly, and I want to see wages, salaries and incomes of all types increase correspondingly. That cannot be achieved in the higgledy-piggledy way in which income increases are now negotiated, especially when those at factory level do not know what is happening nationally whilst they are negotiating an increase applicable to their factory. This is why I have always been in favour of a reasoned prices and incomes policy.
Almost without cessation from the end of the last war there has been no need for Governments to have a full-employment policy. In other words, since the end of the war Governments' economic policies have pre-supposed high levels of employment, and, with certain exceptions, when the tap has had to be turned on a little there has been no need for the first priority in economic policy to be full employment.
That period has passed. From now on the creation and maintenance of full employment must be the first priority of economic policy. This will create other problems, but such is the urgency of the present situation that the Government must abandon economic policies which as a by-product produce unemployment, which is followed by a small turning-on of the tap in an attempt to cure it. As the Chancellor lamented today, that is no longer working.
At the moment the Government have no instruments for creating and maintaining full employment. The Treasury cannot begin to be such a Department. The Department of Employment never has operated, and never can, given present dispensation, operate such a policy. I regret that that Department seems to look upon itself simply as an ambulance squad; it waits until somebody in industry gets a broken head; then it dashes in, binds up the wound, and gets that person back into the fray again. I grant that the Department is marvellous at doing that, but what is needed is an instrument with economic powers to make full employment the first priority.
I believe it was a mistake to get rid of the Department of Economic Affairs. Instead, it should have been given much greater power. Any Government which seriously set about creating full employment will have to resurrect that Department in one form or another.
This Government have abolished the National Board for Prices and Incomes, the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation and the Consumer Council. If the Government are serious in their intentions they will have to re-create those bodies. I do not want to rub their noses too far in the dirt, so if they call them by other names I shall pretend that I have not noticed, and it seems that they are now beginning to re-create one or two. But the vehicles necessary for the creation of full employment are not at present in existence.
I accept that we are now in the phase of technological unemployment. We must, therefore, do far more—again, I agree with something said by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North—about the business of retraining than we have ever thought of before. Looking back on it, I feel that we have simply played

about with the retraining issue. As hon. Members know, I have heavy unemployment in the steel works in my constituency. No provision is being made for retraining those men to do a skilled job, or, indeed, to do a semi-skilled job. One of the great losses which we shall sustain is that when skilled men cannot find skilled work they will accept semi-skilled or unskilled work. Their worth to the nation as skilled artisans will have gone. This is another of the losses to be put in the scale when we weigh these matters.
The Chancellor has announced the bringing forward of the capital programmes of the nationalised industries. It is well worth doing. I hope it will have an effect in the steel industry at Irlam. But if we are right in saying that technological unemployment is now with us, the bringing forward of those programmes will entail the acceleration of advance in modern methods of producing goods. Plainly, one cannot rely on the old methods of production; there must be a breakthrough. But let there be no misunderstanding about it: this will not necessarily he one of the ways to reduce unemployment. It may well be that the very bringing forward of these programmes will exacerbate the problem which we are all trying to solve. The House must face this matter because of the consequences which may flow from it.
If it is right that the nationalised industries' capital programmes should be brought forward, what is wrong with applying the same principle to private enterprise? The Chancellor tells us that one of the problems is that people lack confidence, that they feel that they cannot invest at this stage, that they fear that they will lose their investment. But is not the Chancellor afraid that the nationalised industries also might lose their investment? To put it another way, although I believe that he is right to have the capital programmes brought forward in the nationalised industries, I believe, also, that in this sense all business is the nation's business. In spite of all we hear about the "lame duck" theory, we do a lot in this nation now to assist private enterprise in a great many ways. We have a right to expect the same social responsibility from private enterprise as we insist upon from the nationalised industries.
Admittedly, this will mean intervention from a non-interventionist Government—though I wonder whether they call themselves non-interventionists any more after the Chancellor's speech today—but if we are serious in wanting to tackle the problem of unemployment and if it is true, as the Chancellor and the financial pundits say, that we are not seeing enough capital investment, what do we do about it? Do we sit back and say that it is all just too bad? If I say, "Let us nationalise the lot", do we say, "That is just Fred Lee's bias in favour of nationalisation"? We cannot have the greater part of British industry, the private sector, immune from this kind of thing while at the same time we argue that it is right and proper in the country's interest that the capital programmes of the nationalised industries should be brought forward.
With all the incentives offered now, I think it wrong that private enterprise should not be investing. I happen to believe that a time of slackness is the right time to invest in preparation for the day when the slack ends. But, apparently, the Government and their friends always work the other way round.
In my view, therefore, if the Government are serious in wanting to convince the House—they have not done it yet—that they now realise the folly of the policies which they have hitherto adopted, that they understand that they must re-prime the pump in nationalised industry, if not in private industry, they must acknowledge that at a time when we want purchasing power to rise we must ensure that the higher purchasing power goes into the pockets of those who, generally speaking, have to spend 100 per cent. of their incomes.
I acknowledge that this is a very difficult time. The right hon. Member for Wallasey said that the next 10 years would see vast changes. I accept that. But he seems to forget that there are those of us in the House now who have lived through the period of greatest industrial and technological change the nation has ever seen. This is why we are still here. Those of us who were here at the end of the war were, frankly, apprehensive about whether man could survive. We have survived, and we have

survived because this generation has successfully faced the greatest and most rapid changes that man has ever seen.
I believe that, given the right Government policies from now on—I despair of this Government—we can tackle technological unemployment. This is an age in which leisure is possible in a measure never known before. I sometimes wonder whether my friends in the trade union movement are arguing the right cases in their discussions with employers. If I were leading a trade union now instead of having degenerated to my present level, I should be spending more money and effort on research into the use of leisure time than on any other subject I can think of. I commend to my friends in the industrial world the thought that that is the sort of problem which we must now face if we are to come through what will be a very difficult period anyway.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: There is inevitably a danger in a debate of this sort that we shall concentrate our vision too much upon the present and the immediate past and, it being a censure debate, that the date 18th June, 1970, will be presented as an economic watershed. That date was certainly a political watershed, but there is no reason to suppose that it has any special significance in retrospect in Britain's economic story.
I do not believe that we can form a just view of the problem which the House is now discussing unless we widen our vision sufficiently to take in at least the last five or six years. I believe that the pattern of events in that period viewed as a whole was extremely significant. Between 1966 and 1967 there was a sharp increase in unemployment. Then, from 1967 to 1969, unemployment was almost absolutely constant; there was virtually no change whatever in the level in those three years. Then, in 1969, occurred a further swift increase in unemployment, succeeded by a much sharper increase still between 1970 and 1971.
The significant point is the parallel between that experience with unemployment in the last five years and what was happening to inflation. The jump in unemployment between 1966 and 1967 was, as one might have expected upon the doctrines on which we have been


brought up, accompanied by a reduction in the rate of inflation; but what has happened since is that inflation has gone ahead, first steadily and then at an accelerating rate, so that the rise of unemployment, first over the foothills between 1969 and 1970 and then up the escarpment between 1970 and 1971, has corresponded almost exactly with the movement of inflation itself. Here is a new and striking phenomenon, which we dare not ignore. The experience of the past four or five years has been something not only unparalleled but something which it had been confidently predicted could not happen, a coincidence between the continuance and acceleration of inflation and the continuance and acceleration of unemployment.
I think it probable—and certain figures which were given this afternoon by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury tend to bear this out—that the rate of inflation is now declining again. If that is so, I believe that the floating of the £ in August and the consequent diminution of the huge surpluses on the balance of payments, converted into internal domestic purchasing power, will have had something to do with it. Now we should all admit—I do not see how it can be disputed—that some temporary or transitional unemployment must be the consequence of the slowing down of inflation. But even if inflation has been slowing down in these past three or four months, it cannot be that which gives us our clue to the meaning of the phenomenon of major unemployment which the House confronts this evening.
The coincidence of an unparalleled rise in unemployment with an inflation unparalleled in its duration and severity forces us to revise the philosophies upon which nearly all of us have operated for the past 30 years. For the past 30 years it has been part of the vocabulary of politicians of all parties that whatever else might be our disadvantages in the modern era, at any rate we had, to use an American expression, "got the goat" of unemployment; we knew the trick; there was a device, a monetary mechanism; and it was mere stupidity or carelessness on the part of Governments if, possessing the mechanism which would do the trick, they did not use it.
I noticed an expression that the right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick

Lee) used. He said that from time to time in the past 20 or 25 years the tap had had to be turned on. That tap to which the right hon. Gentleman was referring has been full on in the past four or five years, and all our endeavours have been devoted to turning that tap down. Yet it has proved to be worse than irrelevant to the phenomenon of unemployment. Therefore, to be using today the parrot cry, the conditioned reflex reaction, "Reflate, reflate" is nonsense. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) punctured that balloon very well.
Reflation means, if it means anything, ceasing to deflate and starting to inflate. If it does not mean that, if it is being used in a looser sense, all we are saying is that the disease ought to be cured by curing the disease. If all we mean by reflating is stopping unemployment, that is the thing we are talking about and we do not produce the answer to it by using the word "reflation". In any intelligible sense, reflation in a period of rapid inflation is worse than irrelevant. Surely it is not the idea of either party that with the present rate of inflation—6 per cent., 10 per cent., or whatever it might be—we shall find a cure for our problems by adding another 2 per cent. to the going rate?
When my right hon. Friends come forward with proposals for increased Government expenditure, each of which in itself may be meritorious, the dilemma which faces us and them is this: is that extra expenditure to be financed by increased borrowing or taxation—in which case there will be no net increase in total demand, and presumably none, therefore, in total demand for labour—or is it to be financed by the creation of additional money—in which case what reason have we for supposing that that additional monetary demand will not simply be absorbed, as it has been in the past four years, in rising prices and a further twist to the spiral of inflation?
The monetary belief, or the monetary myth, upon which a whole generation has been reared—that an injection of money into the system is the automatic cure for unemployment—has collapsed in the face of the experience of the past four or five years.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Powell: I wonder whether I shall be answering my hon. Friend's question before he asks it. I shall gladly give way if my suspicion proves not to be correct.
I may be told, as we often are, "Yes, but it is not inflation generally that is being talked about; the problem on which one has to concentrate is wage inflation." We are told that that is the specific phenomenon of recent times and that it is there that we are to seek the cause, and perhaps consequently the cure, of our present difficulties.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: My right hon. Friend has answered half my question but the other half is just as important. Does he consider the reduction of taxation to be reflating or inflating? Such a reduction is vital in order to encourage the necessary investment, the lack of which I believe to be the problem that is interfering with the normal working of the machine as it has worked in the past.

Mr. Powell: As my hon. Friend knows, I am a lifelong advocate of the balanced reduction of both Government expenditure and taxation; but a reduction of taxation without a corresponding reduction in outgoings has the same monetary effect as an increase in expenditure with no corresponding increase in taxation and borrowing. So that still falls within the limits of the dilemma which I was posing.
I return to what is a commonly canvassed notion, that we are characteristically in a period of wage inflation and that wage inflation is in some way to blame, at least as part of the cause of our current difficulties. "Wage inflation" is a term which we should be careful not to use without analysis. Obviously, in a period of inflation, of a general rise in prices or a general fall in the value of money, wages, like all other prices, will participate in that movement, whether it is 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. per annum. So we can eliminate that element from the increase in wages—the element which merely corresponds with, and reflects, the going rate of inflation.
There is another element. If the productivity of labour increases by 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. in a year and the price of labour—wages, earnings—rises

by a similar amount, again we cannot properly describe that as wage inflation. Indeed, without such an increase in wages we should not be taking out, in terms of an improved standard of living, the increase in our productive capability.
The only sense in which the increase in wages could be relevant to our problem is if, after we have deducted the going rate of inflation and the current rate of increase in productivity, we are left with an increase in the real value of wages which represents an actual shift or redistribution amongst the factors of production in favour of labour as against the other factors. I accept that it is theoretically possible that such a shift could take place; and certainly such a shift, if carried beyond a certain point, would inevitably throw labour out of demand: if it had the result of reducing the return on capital and the return to enterprise beyond an acceptable point, then quite clearly production would be abandoned or enterprises would not be undertaken.
Nevertheless, having posed what I believe is the kernel of the argument that we are faced with the consequences of wage inflation, I must admit that I find this a very difficult proposition to accept; for it becomes necessary to explain—and I find this impossible to do—why the trade unions, the sellers of labour, have started just at this time to force up the real price of labour, to force up real wages, in such a way as to put their own members out of employment.
We are told that the unions—and there is truth in this—possess monopolistic power; we are told—and I see no harm in this—that they use their bargaining power to the utmost. Perhaps they do: if so, that is what they exist for. What no one, so far as I know, has satisfactorily explained is why, for year after year after year, this virtually unchanged monopolistic power, this equally exercised power of the unions, did not produce the effect it has suddenly started to produce in the last two years. If one is to account for that sudden change, one either has to assume an alteration in motivation and in human nature on the part of trade unions which I find quite incredible, or one has to look in some other direction altogether for the explanation.
Here I think we have been inhibited by the assumption that because deflation—inadequate demand—can cause unemployment, therefore it is always the cause of unemployment. After all, the memory of this generation of men, the outstanding experience of their historical or personal memories, is of a massive unemployment caused by deflation. We know that monetary factors, even if they were not the only factors at work then, were certainly important and probably decisive. It is not unnatural, therefore, that our minds should be dominated by that experience and that we should be tempted to conclude that there can be only one causation of unemployment.
But if one goes further back, beyond the searing experience of the 1930s, one finds that it was quite widely recognised that unemployment could, and periodically did, arise from a different sort of cause altogether; and it has been a remarkable feature of this debate that so many right hon. and hon. Members, speaking from different points of view—the right hon. Merrier for Orkney and Shetland, my right Hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) and, in some parts of his speech, the right hon. Member for Newton—have gravitated towards the same analysis.
There is no inherent reason why the rate of improvement of productivity and the rate of obsolescence of current processes should be precisely and invariably balanced by the emergence of a new pattern of demand and of new forms of production—new needs to be met and new ways of meeting them. Hitherto, for the last 25 years, we have lived in a period in which that balance has existed and been kept. It was not we who kept it—we may attribute to ourselves, on either side of the House, the virtue for having kept it, but I do not believe we did; it was a period in which this happened. Anyhow, I believe that that period has now come to an end and that we are in a new period when the rate of obsolescence, of technological change, of increase in productivity, has, at any rate for a time, outstripped the rate at which we are producing new needs, new demands and new methods of fulfilling them.
That is an analysis which has been common to a good deal said already in the debate. If the analysis be even par-

tially true, it is possible to indicate what kind of policy will be most beneficial, under what kind of policy unemployment is likely to be least severe and least protracted. Defined in the abstract, the policy will be one which makes it as easy as possible for obsolescence to take place, as easy as possible for resources and labour to move from what is obsolete to what is new, and which gives the maximum inducement and the maximum opportunity for new lines of production, new ways of meeting needs to be explored and experimented with. That must be the general prescription; that must be the general type of policy under which we shall suffer least from unemployment, if it is the sort of unemployment I have suggested.
I do not think it can be disputed that in its broad outline, that is the kind of policy—that these are the principles of policy—on which this Government came to office and which they have pursued, on the whole, during the last 18 months. Now we stand at a point of decision—and this does not only apply to this side of the House—and a point of temptation. Tomorrow, right hon. and hon. Members are going to be lobbied by their constituents, and on whichever side we sit we shall not only have personal sympathy with those whom the lobbyists represent but a lively political interest in giving them satisfaction.
There is a grave temptation to seize the short-term, the facile, the habitual, the traditional answer and either to promise that by short-term Government action, expenditure or whatever it may be, unemployment will be alleviated or cured, or, if we sit opposite, to say, "It would be perfectly easy if only Her Majesty's Government would take the measures which we have commended to them." That is the easy course. But it does not correspond with the analysis which many right hon. and hon. Members know is most appropriate to the phenomena with which we are confronted.
Therefore, I say to the Government and to my hon. Friends that when we persist in policies which give the maximum encouragement and reward to the successful exploitation of new forms of production and the meeting of new forms of demand; when we decline to use public money to maintain processes which are obsolete or obsolescent; when we place the emphasis on everything which


will facilitate, encourage and even enforce change, then we are doing perhaps the utmost which is in the power of any Government to moderate the severity and shorten the duration of unemployment.
Our concern for unemployment and those who suffer from it can best be shown by doing what is sometimes the most difficult thing for politicians—to tell what we know to be the truth, even though it may indicate that we do not have within our power as politicians all the answers.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. Norman Pentland: Whenever the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) rises to speak in the House he always commands attention because, whether one agrees or disagrees with him, he tries to analyse the roots of many of the problems facing us. I must confess that the Minister on the Front Bench seemed during his speech to be as confused and bemused as to the real purpose of his analysis, particularly on the long term and the relationship with the trade unions, as anyone else in the House.
For many years the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in a previous Tory Government. He referred to the unemployment march which is to take place in London tomorrow. He will be able to meet the lads from the shop floor and the unemployed who are coming here to speak to all of us. They will say that, despite his brilliant analysis of how the situation has developed and how the problem may be solved in the long term, their first question is why, for the first time since the end of the last war, with a Tory Government in power again there are almost a million unemployed. The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that in this debate we are concerned with the immediate problem of the staggering and appalling unemployment figures. These are the questions which these men will want answered tomorrow.
I shall concentrate what I have to say on the problems of the North-East. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) said we should face up to the realities of the situation. I wish the hon. Gentleman would face up to them as they exist in the Northern Region. He knows, or should know, that

all sections of the community in the North are appalled by the prevailing high unemployment figures there. There is deep anger and deep resentment among all sections of the community.
In the Northern Region every responsible trade unionist and industrialist is dismayed and apprehensive about what the future holds for the area, and they have every right to be. There are now nearly 85,000 unemployed, which is 23,000 more than a year ago. These are the worst November figures since the end of the war. We know, and the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North should know, that before the winter is ended there will be more than 100,000 people out of a job in the North-East.
Despite what the Chancellor has said today and despite the packet he has introduced today, that figure is unavoidable. If it is not unavoidable, this is the time for the Chancellor or some other Minister to say that unemployment in the Northern Region will fall over the next six months and certainly not reach the figures which I have forecast. Building a power station is all right, but the Chancellor and the rest of the Cabinet know that it will not "bite" immediately, that it will be nine or twelve months before anything results. That is true of many of the other measures which the Chancellor has announced.
Throughout the whole of the North many workers have lost their jobs since the Government took office. The Chancellor asserted that it was because of wage cost problems that workers were losing their jobs in industries in the North and other development regions. It is nothing of the kind. It is because there is a lack of demand for their products.
In my area and throughout the whole of the North many tens of thousands of workers have lost their jobs since 18th June, 1970. They were working in engineering, in the chemical industries, industries in which they thought they had job security for the rest of their working lives. Now workers in those industries live in perpetual dread of the day when the manager will say, "I am sorry, old boy; your services are no longer needed in this industry." In other words, sense of job security that existed in the region under a Labour Government has been completely shattered by a Tory Government.
No one will persuade me that history does not repeat itself under Tory Governments, for I know that it does. In my area I see youngsters looking for their first job, or looking for another job after having been at work for only a few months. These youngsters are 17, 18 or 19 years of age, and they are looking for work throughout the whole of the North. That takes me back to when we were their age, in the 1930s, when we were doing then exactly what they are doing now in 1971—looking for a job.
It should be recorded that in the County of Durham, for instance, a man has to be almost 40 years of age to be able to remember a time when unemployment was as high as it now is. That is a shocking indictment of the Government and their policies. They have stood aside while all this has been happening. Every responsible Minister in the Cabinet has had advice from various quarters. The Prime Minister has been most complacent of all as this situation has arisen throughout the whole of the development areas.
We are all capable of speaking at great length about the problems facing our areas and about the policies which have brought about lack of confidence and a sense of despair among the people we represent, and we are able to produce the evidence. I do not have the time this evening to deal with that. Since 18th June, 1970, my hon. Friends have consistently drawn the Government's attention, during Questions and in debates, to various suggestions which they wanted to be implemented, but time and time again they have been completely ignored by the Prime Minister and other responsible Ministers.
We could discuss this subject at great length, but the simple fact, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) pointed out and as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said, is that as soon as the Government dismantled the Labour Government's regional policies without providing any effective replacement the situation in the Northern Region and throughout the development areas began to go from bad to worse until now it has become critical. In the past 15 months every responsible body in the region has expressed concern about the

situation, and the Chancellor and his colleagues know it. The trade unions, the local authorities, the Northern Regional Planning Council, the North-East Development Council, the employers' organisations and so on have all warned the Government about the situation which would develop and have urged the Government to take positive action. That has all been to no avail. Even what the Chancellor said today will do very little to relieve unemployment in the Northern Region during the winter.
On November 18th one of our North-East newspapers, the Newcastle Journal, carried a report of a survey which it had carried out into the North's unemployment position and the prospects for the future. It was a remarkable survey. It was sent to the Prime Minister and other members of the Cabinet, and I hope that they have examined it, because it highlights, with depressing clarity, the grim situation in our area. It also directs questions to the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Employment, the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—to all those Ministers whose responsibility it is to take realistic steps to deal with the development region problem. The Newcastle Journal said of these Ministers:
These are the men who must make it their business to put faith in place of fear, money in place of misery, and work in place of waste.
Even the Newcastle Journal—and I would not say that it is always sympathetic to the Labour cause—is appalled by the situation in the area. I would, therefore, congratulate the newspaper on its initiative in drawing public attention to the grim facts of our unemployment problem in the North. I wish I could believe that its remarks would have an impact on the Government's long-term or immediate policies, but I fear that they will not.
I concede at once that there are many hon. Gentlemen opposite who are seriously concerned about the present unemployment position. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West must face the fact that history proves that when Tory Governments have wanted to fulfil philosophical objectives they have, over and over again, used unemployment as an instrument of policy. That is what has


happened now; that is the charge that we level at this Government; and that is why we in the development regions are experiencing the worst unemployment since the 1930s. That is why the people we represent look forward to an early General Election when they can once again demonstrate their intention of removing the Tory Government and replacing them with a Labour Government.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. Rafton Pounder: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland). We are tending to go round the geographical clock as this debate wears on.
I must confess that I do not wholly accept the oft-used argument that what is good for the national economy as a whole is also good for the regional economies. The regions have their own special problem. The majority of branch factories throughout the regions are offshoots of parent companies based in the affluent Midlands or South-East. The situation inevitably arises when a chill economic wind blows that the branch factories in the regions—often Government-financed, where the company concerned has less to lose—are closed. Likewise, when there is an economic upturn, it can often take six to nine months for the fruits of this to percolate through to the regions. Using the ordinary national argument, therefore, the regions can be a two-way loser—being hit by the chill breeze and then being the last to derive benefit from an improvement in economic conditions.
For a long time it has been inevitable, even if we do not like it, that there must come a shake-up in industry. One of the things which, some years ago, made me angry—and perhaps I am envious of those areas which have a high level of employment—was the tendency of some firms to hoard labour on the offchance that they might need their skills in boom conditions. This tended to distort the market considerably. I speak of the days when I worked in the motor industry.
The assumption has been made that we are masters in our own house, able to create or cure present levels of unemployment. Surely we are at the mercy of world trends and these trends, certainly in the North Atlantic area, are not encouraging at the moment. I hope that

whatever happens as a result of the thinking and policy-making that is going on, at last we shall get away from the stop-go economics which have characterised both Governments' policies in recent years. I speak in a non-partisan way when I say that we have not found the stop-go philosophy attractive in the regions.
I have been suprised that there has not been a greater resurgence of business confidence in the light of the measures taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the spring and midsummer. I find this particularly distressing, because the initatives were positive and by any ordinary standards would have led to a considerable expansion of the economy and a considerable reduction of unemployment. For some odd reason, however, which I do not pretend to understand, the measures taken to try to halt the cruel spiral of inflation—easier credit facilities, increased opportunity for consumer spending, reduction of taxation—all these, laudable policies in the past do not appear to have been successful on this occasion.
I am equally certain that if we are to talk in terms of a credible regional policy, that policy must lay considerable emphasis on infrastructure because unless there are good roads, amenities and adequate housing, no industrialist will come to the area, yet he may be able to create considerable employment opportunities.
Like everyone else in the House I am deeply distressed by the current level of unemployment. I have noticed particularly in the last few months the number of my own friends who have become afflicted by unemployment. I have, thank goodness, never had that experience, but I am satisfied from what they tell me and from what I know of them that unemployment, be it for only a short period, leaves a scar that can never disappear from a person's personality. Unemployment has been no respecter of the positions held by individuals in companies. The man at management level has found himself every bit as much in the front line of redundancy as the man on the shop floor.
I turn now to the employment situation in Northern Ireland and the pattern which has emerged there in recent months. I do not pretend to be able to draw any conclusions from it, but the unemployment


figures in Northern Ireland have not always followed the national trend, although the November unemployment figures show this month to have been one of the worst we have ever had. Two months ago we were going in the opposite direction. Northern Ireland, despite the disorders, last year achieved a higher proportionate rate of growth than any other region of the United Kingdom, a figure of almost 7 per cent.
One of the things I find tragic almost beyond expression, is that having made Herculean efforts—the Northern Ireland Government and the Government here—to attract industry to Northern Ireland, to produce investment and consequential job opportunities, we find that some factories have now attracted the attention of the terrorists. It is bad enough having an unemployment problem but when it is compounded by acts of terrorism it has the gravest consequences for an area such as Northern Ireland.
I would hate anyone to get the idea that the Northern Ireland economy is on its knees. It is bruised—of that there can be no doubt—but vast sections of industry are operating normally. Obviously in the retail and distributive trades problems have arisen, as is to be expected when people are reluctant to shop in towns any more than is necessary. If there had been no assistance to Harland and Wolff a year ago, the economic situation in Belfast would have been totally catastrophic. I want to put it clearly on the record that I am extremely grateful to the Government for their assistance at a critical period.
People have often said that the Northern Ireland economy is in a bad way, but I recently looked up the figures. In the last three years, out of 2,900 manufacturing firms only five have gone out of business. Out of a work force in manufacturing industry of 182,000, only 300 people have lost their jobs directly as a result of the disorders. A C.B.I. survey of the 200 firms in Northern Ireland representing 80 per cent. of the working population revealed that 85 per cent. of those firms' orders books were as good as or better than in the corresponding period a year ago. Set against that background, how can we even attempt to find an explanation for unemployment running at very nearly 9 per cent.? Is there any comfort to be derived from the remark

of the Chairman of the Londonderry Commission, Mr. Brian Morton, who recently said that but for the disorders the unemployment problem in Londonderry would be nearly cured?
What can we do to offer some comfort to the regions as a whole, and to a specific area such as Northern Ireland? We have three crosses to bear in Ulster. First there is our general vulnerability as a region. The recent disorders which have manifested themselves in physical damage and adverse publicity, which are inevitably injurious to us, means also that companies find it harder to obtain insurance cover and there are the increased costs of providing their own security. Add to that the perennial problem of high transportation costs and it can be seen that we have fairly massive problems to resolve. For an area like Northern Ireland—and I suspect it is true of many other regions, particularly those further away from the Midlands and the South-East—the answer is to find a, high-value, low-volume, labour-intensive article. Having spelled that out as the ideal requirement, I cannot think of any industry which will meet such a requirement.
I welcome the announcement made by my right hon. Friend today for increased public expenditure, even though none of it will directly come to Northern Ireland, so far as I can gather. This is the time when a lot of work which has to be done, such as the building of new roads, the modernising of ports and hospitals, ought to be done. This will help considerably in relieving unemployment.
The right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) made two valuable points. He talked about education for leisure and the tragedy of the skilled person having to accept semi-skilled or unskilled employment with a consequent wastage of talent. There is also the problem of the school-leaver on the threshhold of his commercial and industrial life. There is nothing more demoralising than for a young person to come out of school with a number of qualifications of a reasonable quality and to find that he is starting his life on the labour market.
I have been surprised at how little selective employment tax has come into the analysis of the factors leading to our


current unemployment level. I am not thinking in any emotive or partisan sense but of something like the tourist trade, which is seasonal anyway and which was severely affected by the imposition of S.E.T.
Just as a couple of centuries ago the United Kingdom was a pastoral community and then moved to an industrial one, I feel that we are now moving towards a service economy. If we are, what is so selfish or unreasonable about that? I have never been able to understand why manufacturing industry is put on a pedestal while service industry is several steps further down the ladder. It seems quite illogical and I hope that when we talk about getting the economy moving again and reducing unemployment, we are thinking not only of manufacturing but also of service industries.
What we desperately need is an imaginative regional policy. I utterly reject the idea that the regions, with good basic services and a surplus of good labour, are a liability. On the contrary, they are an asset, they are the one part of our country which can expand without creating over-heating and general inflation. Can we please now have a realistic regional policy which gets away from stop-go and which recognises this fact about the regions? I call upon the Labour Party to think about that too.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. John Morris: The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) called for an imaginative regional policy. That is the one thing that this Government have patently failed to provide. It was refreshing to hear him say that he did not accept that what is good for the national economy is necessarily good for the regions. We know that too well in Wales, and, I am sure, in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Pounder: I thought I said "automatically" rather than "necessarily".

Mr. Morris: I hope I did not mislead anyone by paraphrasing the hon. Gentleman.
We have had some philosophical speeches. We had the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) peering into the dim and distant future. Then the right hon. Member for Wolver-

hampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) told us of the danger of concentrating too much on the present and immediate past. He forgot that this is a Motion of censure, deploring the Government's continued failure to produce correct policies and deploring the disgraceful level of unemployment. The words of the right hon. Gentleman are interesting but when the verbiage is stripped away what we have is a statement of the need to balance new production on the one hand with obsolescence on the other and of the obvious need for more investment. But he would not go that one further step which the logic of his argument required him to go and admit the need for an interventionist Government.
I listened with care to what the Chancellor said today about his new proposals to try to alleviate existing problems. They were bits and pieces. They represented the action of a frightened Government. I can well imagine a frightened Cabinet calling on a Cabinet committee to scrape the barrel of every Government Department to try to produce something to deal with the immediate situation.
One thing that the Chancellor has done that underlines the failure of this Government—it has probably done more harm to the economy of the regions than anything else—is to substitute investment allowances for investment grants. His confession that he was proposing to bring forward the payment of investment grants was an admission of the speed with which such grants have acted in providing new employment in the regions.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) made a most moving speech. We welcome him back to our debates. He said that from time to time all Governments had miscalculated in respect of timing and the amount of reflation necessary. We can certainly say of the Chancellor's present proposals, "Too late, and too little". If there is anything that thoroughly discredits the Government it is their complete failure to deal with the employment situation. They cannot be excused on the ground that they knew not what they were doing; indeed, there is an element of deliberation in what they have done. Faced as they were—and we concede this—with rising wage demands, they warned the workers of the danger of pricing themselves out of a job and of the need to


be competitive. Some firms, including one in my constituency, took that literally. The firm in my constituency told one important trade union that if it pursued its claim the firm would shut down.
That atmosphere was created by the Government. They gave that line to the employers. The Government would seem to have had a deliberate interest in creating the atmosphere and climate which led to the situation of 10 men chasing one job. I cannot excuse them on the ground that they were not deliberate in what they were doing. They wanted to keep wages down and to break the power of the unions in order to do so. Against that background, it is no wonder that they delayed reflating the economy. We have had experience of heating the economy on the one hand and cooling it on the other. We know that those measures, on both sides of the coin, take a great deal of time to have their full effect.
The only comfort that I could possibly seek to draw from the present situation on behalf of the unemployed in my part of the country is that some of the steps that are being taken now, together with some of those taken earlier, may enable us at some distant point to cope with some of the problems arising from the grave situation in which we find ourselves.
The other reason why the Government have delayed reflating the economy is that they have worshipped for too long at the altar of the balance of payments. They have taken great pride at the good trading figures with external countries that we have had month after month, but at the end of the day those figures are of only limited value. I pay ready tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) for laying the foundations for the present balance of payments situation. But this Government have failed to realise that the time would come—and it has come much sooner than they would seem to have estimated, judging by their failure to take any steps to deal with it—when it would be dangerous to go on worshipping at the altar of the balance of payments if that could be done only at the expense of ordinary working people, who were being denied the chance of earning a livelihood.
We all realise that if this Government achieve their object of entering the Com-

mon Market vast amounts of money will have to be paid by this country across the exchanges in the difficult early years. Various estimates have been made about the price of our entry ticket. The recent estimates are all greater than the earlier ones. There is a need to be strong in balance of payments by that time—a need to have money available to meet the inevitable rainy day. This Government have ensured that the balance of payments situation has been kept strong. They have avoided reflating the economy, although they should have done so much earlier.
The tragedy of the situation is that the price of our entry ticket into Europe is being paid by the unemployed and their families. Whatever may be the ultimate benefit of our joining the Common Market, today the sacrifices are being borne not by right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench or other hon. and right hon. Members opposite, but by the unemployed throughout the country, and especially those in the regions, in Wales, the North-West and Scotland.
I do not know when right hon. and hon. Members opposite last spoke to unemployed persons. I do not know how familiar they are with the problems of people who month after month are being denied the opportunity of employment. That is the situation in my area, and in South Wales generally. Week in and week out in our surgeries, in the clubs, in the churches and chapels and all over our constituencies we meet people who are unable to find employment.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South mentioned the tragedy of the situation. There can be no greater tragedy than for a young man or woman leaving school, college or apprentice course—for whom the world should be an oyster—to find that there is no job available. Such young people leave Wales. That is what has happened over the years. The young men of Wales, Scotland and the North leave the towns and villages where they have been brought up to find employment elsewhere.
A famous Government report, published as far back as 1954, said that depopulation was used as a form of economic adjustment. That is true. The young move out, leaving the old behind. That will continue to happen to our community unless fundamental action is


taken to ensure that people in the areas to which I have referred are able to earn a living in their own communities.
One thing is obvious; the regional policy of the Government, if they can be said to have one, has completely and utterly failed in Wales. I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Wales is ill and unable to be present. We regard his stewardship as being akin to that of the absentee landlord. He has sought to serve two masters, and has not done either job particularly well. I hope that the Prime Minister will take an early opportunity to relieve the Secretary of State for Wales of one of his jobs. If the Prime Minister does his task properly, he will relieve the Secretary of State of both jobs at the same time.
What advantages have we had from the stewardship of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends? What decisions have flowed from the palsied hand of the Secretary of State? The flow of new jobs to Wales has ceased since the right hon. Gentleman took office. The number of jobs in the pipeline has dropped dramatically. The number of new small businesses has not risen with the change from investment grants to investment allowances. That is the general situation in Wales, and in some pockets in my constituency unemployment affects 201 males in a very small community. It is not possible to give percentages, but 201 males and 69 females are unemployed, and those figures do not include 34 males and one female who are trying to find work under sheltered conditions.
That is the situation under a Government which do not believe in intervention. We had begun the vital task of ensuring that new work came to our community. On 18th June, 1970, we were denied the opportunity of completing that vital task.
The Government have wholly failed to bring any hope whatsoever to the regions. There is no policy. We know it, and I am sure that in their hearts they know it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer can produce his bits and pieces, but the whole House knows that there is no strategy for dealing with the real problems of the regions.
A poet of the people in my country a tong time ago sang,

Not charity for man but work
Man is too great for charity,
For charity leaves its scar.
Our people have been scarred in the past. Again, people in Wales know that the Conservative Party is synonymous with unemployment, and they will not forget it.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: This has been an interesting and worthwhile debate. This has been shown all the more clearly by the way that most hon. Members have made thoughtful contributions, and with the exception of the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) there has been little ranting and raving.
I do not wish to do more than intervene briefly. I wish to refer to the aerospace industry and the employment situation that prevails in it. It is a major export earner, a major defence industry and a major technological leader. It is also an industry which has lost nearly 20 per cent. of its labour force since 1964. Some people say that the redundancies have not yet come to an end. It may be helpful to take this industry in particular and to consider some of the reasons why this is so.
The first and most obvious reason, which will be familiar to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and not least to the right hon. Member for Aberavon, is that the demand which has been put upon the aerospace industry, particularly by the previous Government, has been a diminishing one. It will be an irony that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), who is to speak tonight from the Opposition Front Bench, should be the man who was responsible for the cancellation of the TSR2. That decision,—the more to be regretted the more time passes, was one point from which the major decline in that industry can firmly be dated.

Mr. Eric Ogden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Onslow: I am afraid not. If further redundancies are in prospect, and if they are to come from the avionics section of the industry, it is worth remembering that this is because, in the award of contracts for the multi-role combat aircraft the Government have been bound by the


terms of the deal which was set up by the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister of Technology in the previous Administration. If there is work which might have come to British firms but which has now gone overseas, and if that means that there will be fewer jobs in the avionics industry, it is well to recall that this is because of decisions taken by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) in particular. It is some consolation that we have so far today been spared the presence of the right hon. Gentleman, who has an unequalled record for putting pobs at risk, as hon. Members on both sides of the House well know.
We can put some of this right. The Government have already made a start in that direction. We had a further announcement today of a very welcome order of 100 Bulldogs which will provide work for Scottish Aviation Ltd., which Scottish Members might recognise as a great step forward. The Bulldog is a good aeroplane, apart from anything else, and Scottish Aviation has done a wonderful job picking up the pieces where the old Beagle Company dropped them under the guidance of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East.
The industry has also received defence orders for Harriers and Buccanneers which will provide more work. The Jet-stream is another excellent aircraft which should be ordered for the Royal Air Force, and this would also help Scottish Aviation. I hope that it will soon be ordered. I shall certainly go on pressing for it, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will do the same.
I should welcome some more positive assurances than the Government have so far felt able to give on Concorde. If it is the case, as I believe, that cancellation is now out of the question, and if this is an aircraft which has proved itself and met its specifications and for which there will be a long-term demand around the world, I wish that we as a nation would make a virtue of the necessity that faces us. If we are to continue backing Concorde, as I believe we must, we should show rather more confidence in our achievement instead of appearing, as we sometimes do on the international scene, to be plodding along in the footsteps of the French.
This is all on the purely demand side of the industry where it is possible,

by turning taps on to effect some increase in the jobs available. But the most instructive feature of the industry, which is a technological innovator, comes elsewhere. In the last 10 years, apart from a slackening of demand, we have seen an end of overmanning. The leaders of the aerospace industry would probably now admit that they used to hoard labour on an unjustified scale because they were always expecting work to come their way and afraid that if they let labour go, it would be snapped up elsewhere in conditions of full employment. But when full employment ceases to obtain the compulsion to hoard labour disappears altogether. A multiplier effect comes in when the margin below full employment begins to open up. We should recognise this as a fact, and a fact which is the fault of no one in particular.
Another significant point is that management has found labour too expensive and has had to do something about it. In this situation I do not join my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in exculpating the trade unions, because they have had a powerful part in making management realise the expense of labour and have accelerated the willingness of management to move towards laboursaving devices of one kind or another. But this need to recognise change has always been there and perhaps we are all to blame for not seeing it sooner.
I recall about eight years ago going round an avionics factory. I was taken through a big workshop full of youngish men in white coats doing jobs which were past my comprehension but which clearly required great skill and training on their part. When I came out at the other end the man who had been taking me round said: "You realise, of course, that most of those chaps in there have a working half-life of 10 years." I said: "I do not follow you." He said: "I mean that in 10 years, half of what they know will be useless because technology will have overtaken them." Therefore, it was easy to see that the firm would inevitably need to replace them by people with more up-to-date skills at their disposal.
We need to adjust ourselves to this situation. We might as well ask ourselves, among other things: how many


unemployed graduates do we need in our society, let alone how many can we afford? In a situation which can best be defined not by emotive references to unemployment, with all the overtones that carries from the past, but as a condition of labour surplus, which defines it more accurately, we should find it easier to feel our way towards some answers. Hon. Gentlemen who put such faith in leisure as an alternative to employment might reflect on the fact that American experience shows that the greater the leisure a man has at his disposal, the greater the chances that he will moonlight and take another job. This, in a sense, merely makes the unemployment situation worse because it is those who have the first jobs who start competing with the unemployed for the second jobs on offer.
The most useful function which this debate will perform is not in the ritual of censure, which is a fairly empty process, as hon. Gentlemen opposite really know in their hearts, but in the impetus which it must give to us to rethink the problem facing us, to determine that we are faced with conditions which are the more unacceptable for being unfamiliar, and to resolve that we must now chart our way towards a different goal rather than try to set course back to a familiar position which many have regarded as the only one possible. One thing about which there should be no dispute is that there can be no hon. Member, on either side of the House, who regards the present temporary situation of a labour surplus as one which should be allowed to become a permanent feature of our society.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: The speech of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) was full of the usual contradictions and lack of understanding. He referred to increased leisure meaning that men took on extra jobs. There is no more leisured class than those who dabble in investment, and they have 30 or 40 directorships. I do not know what sort of moonlighting that is. To argue that a reduced working week means that people take on additional jobs is nonsense.
I now come to the hon. Gentleman's comments about the aerospace industry, and I want to deal with two features of

his argument. I want to deal, first, with the question of overmanning and, second, with the so-called high cost of labour which it is said has meant that over the last 12 months there has been a considerable shake-out of labour in this industry. Those were the two features of the hon. Gentleman's argument: that there had been overmanning, and that employers had come to recognise the high cost of labour.
I want to use my time to make what might be regarded as an extended intervention in the Chancellor's speech. Having been denied that right earlier, I now want to intervene at what might be thought to be considerable length compared with a normal intervention in a speech, but that is not very long anyway. I want to push on and analyse one or two things said by the Chancellor.
I welcome two features of what the right hon. Gentleman said, or what I believe he was saying. One is that the Government will not countenance the giving of grants on any foreign contracts for infrastructure work. I am sorry that all the guilty men on the Government Front Bench have disappeared, with the exception of one, and he is insufficient for my purposes. I take it that what the Chancellor was saying was that in respect of infrastructure work for the railways, for London transport, for shipbuilding, and so on, none of the money would be spent on foreign contracts. If that is so, I welcome it as an improvement on some of the Government's recent attitudes.
The other matter to which I wish to refer is the microscopic reflation about which we are talking. From the figure given by the Chancellor, it appears to be less than ½ per cent. of the G.N.P. If that is correct, it will not solve many problems. If that is the size of the reflation, it is perhaps less than microscopic even. That is the figure which we have been given. It represents a very small proportion of G.N.P., and, therefore, it amounts to a very small reflation, indeed.
It is rumoured in the Press that the Secretary of State for Employment will make an announcement about prices and incomes, or give guidance to employers. I take it that that is his intention this evening, and it may, therefore, be premature to discuss some aspects of what he may say.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke about exceptionally good prospects for the engineering industry, and I want to analyse those. I also want to say something following what was said by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I remind the right hon. Gentleman that during the last few years volume sales have increased by less than 1 per cent. per year, and that is what really matters.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Why does the hon. Gentleman hide behind percentages? Does he really call £1,500 million to £2,000 million microscopic? That is the kind of reflation that is going on. It may be that more is wanted, but "microscopic" is not a suitable description of what has been done so far.

Mr. Atkinson: Why does the hon. Gentleman hide behind statistics? He used some sort of measurement. There are about 55 million people in the country. Therefore, when the amount of reflation that is taking place is spread around it covers very thinly indeed. The only way to demonstrate the true position is to devise a method which is simple enough for hon. Gentlemen opposite to understand, and percentages are the way to do it. However, let me push on and take up the argument of the hon. Member for Woking.
I agree that the level of demand is low. This is demonstrated by the fact that volume sales are almost stagnant. If we are to achieve any stimulus in the economy of the kind that we want, the whole question of volume sales has to be considered, and one has to consider, too, the lack of Government investment and spending. Even though £18,000 million, to use the method preferred by the hon. Gentleman, has been spent by the Government, they ought to have spent considerably more. The Government's spending has a considerable influence on what happens in the economy, and they are, therefore, denied the escape route for which they are looking when they claim that they have no responsibility for the present position.
A remarkable feature of the Chancellor's speech was his admission that even this Government have no final weapon with which to manage the economy other than an employment rate of plus or minus 2 per cent. That is a

fantastic statement. If the primitive method being used for economic management adds up to plus or minus 2 per cent. unemployment, the situation is remarkable, indeed.
I now want to consider some of the figures to which reference has been made. The first thing that we ought to recognise is that no fewer than 1¼ million people are totally unemployed right now. That is the true figure, and not the figure that we have been given. There is proof that the real unemployment figure is 1½ million. The Treasury said recently that the number of P.45 forms issued for tax purposes amounted to just under 11 million a year. This year the figure will exceed 11 million. It means that 11 million people change jobs every year, and we know from the statistics put forward that 12 per cent. of those receiving P.45 forms are unemployed for no less than a two-week period.
If those figures are correct—and we have no reason to disbelieve them—it means that 1¼ million people are looking for jobs; but we are told that there are now fewer than 100,000 vacancies. It is that which demonstrates the seriousness of the situation, and not all this business about people signing on at the employment exchange. Only one unemployed person in seven goes to the employment exchange to register his desire for work. The others are out looking for work themselves.
As I said earlier, there are 11 million job changes per year, and the fact that a great proportion of those—12 per cent.—are unemployed for no less than a two-week period is a measure of the unemployment problem. Are the trade unions to blame? Is it a question of high wages, and so on? Let me talk for a moment about the engineering industry. Let us consider this question of trade unionists pricing themselves out of work and deal with it once and for all.
In the 12 months from September, 1970, to September, 1971, 419,000 workers left manufacturing industry. There was a total loss to the industry of 419,000 jobs, which included 259,000 jobs for adult male workers. Of those, 208,000 were employed in the engineering industry, including the aerospace industry, to which the hon. Member for Woking referred, The total work force of the metal-using


industries is down to just over 3½ million. This is a fantastic situation. It is almost unbelievable. Figures of that sort are an absolute condemnation of the policies being pursued by the guilty men on the benches opposite. If the Chancellor analysed those 208,000 unemployed workers, he would see that they are practically all from the lowest-paid areas of engineering, which receive the lowest wages. In capitalist terms, this makes sense, because the areas of engineering which are most buoyant pay the highest wages and pursue a high wage policy. They have a low turnover in their work force.
If ever there was a case to make, we could claim that unemployment is the result of a low wage policy rather than a high wage policy. I challenge the Chancellor to give some facts and information. In the last few months Ministers have failed to tell us where they get this information about people pricing themselves out of a job. They just want to extend the myth and increase employers' resistance to wage claims.
No fewer than 60 per cent. of engineering workers are working no more than a normal week, most are working less and less than a third are on overtime. That shows the tremendous capacity which will absorb most of the stimulus which the Chancellor talks about, without creating an additional new job. Many engineering employers are now talking about more reduction in the work force, so the outlook is pretty grim for those in engineering.
There are many jokes about this matter. Working-class people have a keen sense of humour. The process is not referred to these days as "Barberism", as it could be—although it is indeed a barbaric process in origin. There is a new set of jokes about "Weinstocking" the industry. This means that factories are likely to be treated like "bin ends". I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) is not here to hear something about this "Weinstocking".
Some of us would like to hear what has happened to G.E.C., A.E.I., English Electric and all the other 27 parts of this amalgamation, what has happened to the work people under the chairmanship of Sir Arnold Weinstock—who has been knighted for his tremendous con-

tribution to unemployment. He has made the biggest single contribution to engineering unemployment—much more even than the barbaric characters opposite. This is the man we presumably honour for the butchering which has gone on in engineering, for the way these work forces are being slashed down to the minimum. These are the realities of the situation.
Another reality, which will cheer the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) is that the engineering unions are now negotiating for a reduction in the working week to 35 hours. The whole nation should applaud them if they withdraw their labour in support of that claim. They are not only making conditions easier for themselves but are helping to solve the unemployment problem. I am glad that the Secretary of State for Employment has arrived at the right time to hear my call for support from him and all his colleagues for the engineering unions' claim for a reduction in their working week to 35 hours as a contribution to solving this country's inherent unemployment problems. That could be the biggest contribution to the stability of engineering employment. We should thank them for their effort. If the stupidity and resistance of employers leads to a withdrawal of labour, the nation should applaud the workers for their stand.
I have no doubt that part of this claim will be described as a political strike in terms of the right hon. Gentleman's new legislation, but it will be a central feature of the Labour movement's fight back against Government policy, which has been directed towards creating this massive unemployment as a means of strengthening employers' resistance to wage claims.
I would ally the Chancellor's comment about people pricing themselves out of work with the support which we seem to be getting from the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, who now says that the rise in the cost of living or price inflation should be added to the increase in production as an immediate wage increase. This is something with which we all agree. We have been trying to argue this case for goodness knows how long. If prices went up by 10 per cent. over the period which he was talking about and there was also a 5·5 per cent. productivity increase,


workers, according to their region, would be entitled right away to that minimum increase.
But any worker on average rates who has to get a wage increase to overcome price inflation needs at least 13 per cent. to give him a take-home pay equal to the rise in prices. So if the right hon. Gentleman is going to oppose that concept later on, he will be contributing towards unemployment by reducing general demand. So there should be some additional wages to stimulate the economy. This is one of the things to which the trade unions can contribute.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): The hon. Gentleman has made a very interesting point. I hope he will continue and say what he thinks would happen to prices—another thing which concerns the Labour Party opposite—if his policy were followed.

Mr. Atkinson: Certainly. If we were to talk about the negotiation of wages against price ceilings, an overwhelming number of hon. Members on this side and a majority of trade unions would welcome that opportunity. Trade unionists recognise that their own standards are being eroded far faster by price inflation than through any other cause. We would do everything possible to stabilise price levels in this country and would welcome an opportunity of seriously negotiating wages against price ceilings.
But under the present arrangement, the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to say to his employer friends that they also must bring in open books to the trade union negotiators, that they must tell them what is happening in the capital market and in investment, who is getting what out of the kitty in the firm, that all this information must be given to the unions, which will then negotiate their wages against price maxima. With a system like that, and with the whole idea of competition removed, we could get down to a profitable wage policy and start to negotiate wages against price maxima. If we are to discuss this later on, I hope we shall have some imaginative ideas on how employers will contribute to that concept.
I believe that the majority of my hon. Friends and the whole of the Labour movement have now rejected the idea

of using unemployment as a means of regulating the economy. It is no longer permissible to talk in terms of an "acceptable" level of unemployment.
I regret that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) is not in his place because I want him and anybody who aspires to a place in the leadership of the Labour Party to know that we are no longer prepared to talk in these terms. Anybody who submits himself as a candidate for the leadership of this movement must be prepared to commit himself to the policy that every man has a right to work, and he must be prepared to accept the implications of that commitment.
An almost revolutionary change has occurred in the approach of the Labour movement to the economic management of the country. We have arrived at the point when we must reverse some of our previous attitudes. We must look afresh at this question of unemployment and commit ourselves to the belief that every person has a right to work.

8.12 p.m.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: I do not propose in the few minutes at my disposal to attempt to comment on the various subjects to which the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) referred, except to assure him that every member of the Conservative Government accepts a policy of full employment.
The situation we face today has arisen largely, though not entirely, from the misdemeanours and mistaken policies of the Labour Government. [Interruption.] We inherited roaring inflation. It was the worst inflation this country has ever known. We are in sight of stabilising prices, but only if we do not allow unemployment to become totally out of control.
In this debate it is evident that the House is divided between those who are deflationary bears, such as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and those who are reflationary bulls, such as myself. I do not believe that the announcements made this afternoon for the expansion of public expenditure in nationalised industries is likely to make a substantial impact on the rise in unemployment.
I feel bound to tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not 'Productivity'."]—that despite this afternoon's measures, I still expect unemployment to be at 1·2 million by February, 1972, and possibly as high as 1·5 million by the middle of next year. Otherwise the economy is in a very strong position. It is probable that we will have a surplus on our balance of payments of about £1,000 million this year.

Mr. Skinner: Who is to thank for that?

Sir G. Nabarro: Part of it is no doubt due to the measures of the Labour Government, but a large part is undoubtedly also due to Conservative measures of the last 18 months.
The second feature is, of course, that our exports continue to rise and show every prospect, in spite of the terms of trade being slightly against us now, of improving still further next year.
I am prepared to grant my right hon. Friends that the reflationary measures of £1,400 million or more in the reduction of taxes, the abolition of credit control and a number of parallel measures have reacted favourably on the strength of the economy. However, unless we are prepared in the next few weeks to take additional reflationary measures, it is my conviction that unemployment will continue to increase in the few months following Christmas.
In my local paper, the Berrow's Worcester Journal, last Friday there appeared these words from the Under-Secretary for Employment and Productivity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Wrong."] I do not know why hon. Gentlemen opposite say "Wrong" when I mention this Ministry. My hon. Friend is the Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am not parodying his title and I think I have correctly described it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] In any event, the article described my hon. Friend as having said:
Now that Parliament has set us so convincingly on the right course for Europe, I believe there will be a new urge of business confidence, a real determination to invest for an expanding future.
All this adds up to an enormous economic and industrial opportunity—the first oppor-

tunity, indeed, for years of achieving the sustained growth that we all want and need.
I do not believe those words and in my view they contain two fallacies. I have not doubt that the article was written by a departmental official who sent those words to my local newspaper. That is the customary practice.
If my hon. Friend is right about Europe—and I am an anti-European—investment will not take place in this country to stimulate employment. It will most largely take place in Europe. That is the first thing wrong with his contention. The second is his reference to it adding
up to an enormous economic and industrial opportunity".
Although he believes that investment will increase, I see no sign whatever of that happening. Everyone is holding back. They do not believe that substantial profits are available in industry because of the punitive level of taxes.
Alternatively, we will not get investment in this country until we are safely tucked up in Europe. There is also a good deal of dubiety about that—about whether, if we ever get tucked up in Europe, there will be such rewarding investment.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): rose—

Sir G. Nabarro: I should not give way to my hon. Friend. Ministers must learn their lesson. Many of us have been sitting here since half-past two this afternoon waiting for a few minutes' grant of time from the Chair. Immediately my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State entered the Chamber he interrupted the speech of the hon. Member for Tottenham, and that set the hon. Gentleman off for another quarter of an hour. The Minister will have between 9.30 and 10 o'clock tonight in which to reply to the debate. He must not be greedy. That should give him ample time in which to reply to all the points that have been made. I rebuke him. He should remain seated.

Mr. Dudley Smith: rose—

Sir G. Nabarro: Very well; just this once.

Mr. Dudley Smith: My hon. Friend is a well-known anti-European. I rise only


to assure him that the words he quoted from his local paper were mine, and I stick by every one of them.

Sir G. Nabarro: If my hon. Friend wished to write in the Worcestershire county newspaper he might have consulted me first, because it covers my constituency. I would not go into his constituency without consulting him. He should have consulted me before intruding into mine.
I shall be brief and allot one minute to each of the reflationary measures I would like to see carried out. On the day after tomorrow, Thursday—because traditionally Bank Rate is dealt with on Thursdays—Bank Rate should be reduced from 5 per cent. to 4 per cent.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Why not 3 per cent.?

Sir G. Nabarro: That would be too low in present circumstances.
The second measure that is urgently necessary and long overdue is to deal with the rump or balance of post-war credits. When we started at the end of the war in 1945 there were £765 million of post-war credits outstanding for repayment. To day the balance is £147 million plus £45 million of interest that has accrued added to that balance, giving a total of £192 million. The whole lot should be paid forthwith. It has been outstanding for long enough. This would be a valuable reflationary measure for people who are in late middle age or elderly.
The third measure I should like to see is a cancellation of the balance of the selective employment tax costing £300 million per annum, which my right hon. Friend can well afford to do. To be kept waiting until June, 1973, for this modest reprieve of the balance of this odious form of taxation is, in my judgment, much too long.
The fourth measure that I should like, and which this afternoon I asked my right hon. Friend at Question Time to do, involves no rebate of taxes, involves no directly reflationary measure, but is designed to prevent the rundown of stocks in the hands of wholesalers and retailers in the distributive trades. The idea that we now have to wait until next April to have the form and scope of value-added tax explained to the

nation is, in my judgment, entirely damaging.
What is happening at present, and it will all be accelerated after Christmas, is that all wholesale and retail firms, including retail shops, are deliberately running down their stocks because they do not want to be caught next year with large purchase tax-paid stocks In hand and being in a position of not having the purchase tax chargeable against value-added tax. They might be charged twice on the same goods. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to ask that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should state now the purchase tax paid on stocks will form a charge against any ultimate assessment of value-added tax.
Fifth, I believe that we ought now to tackle the earnings rule for men and women, which at £9·50 per week is wholly unrealistic having regard to the average male industrial wage in Britain today. It would cost the Treasury practically nothing in real terms, having regard to the extra production and consumption which would be engendered if my right hon. Friend raised the earnings rule from the present £9·50 to £15 for men aged between 65 and 70 and for women aged between 55 and 60.
Sixth, I should like to see the Conservative Party honour the undertaking to restore arrangements whereby interest on bank overdrafts is fully chargeable against income tax and against surtax. If it does not come now, it must come next spring. It would be a valuable reflationary measure. It would cost very little and it would help a great deal, because the banks are bursting at their seams with funds to lend both for capital investment and for consumption purposes.
Finally, my seventh measure is that capital gains tax should be abolished for one important reason not in any way connected with the taking of profits. It should be abolished because it would free the Stock Exchange, restore investment security in large measure and cause people to trade freely on the Stock Exchange, which is the object of a financial marker in capitalist and free society.
All these things are reflationary in character. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has little support from me in what he said today. I believe that


unemployment, though partially endemic in this country—and I cannot yet determine for myself at what level it will become endemic—ought to be contained by the Conservative Party and ought to be reduced as early as possible. I remind my right hon. Friends that a continuing increase in the levels of employment is the sure high road to Communism.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Millan: At the beginning of the speech of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) I thought I was going to agree with pretty well all that he was saying, but I must say that the good work began to tail off towards the end of his remarks. But I do agree with him to the extent that unless some considerably increased stimulus is very quickly given to the economy, unemployment levels will certainly be as he says in the spring or summer of next year.
I speak particularly against the Scottish background of a male unemployment rate of 8·6 per cent. and a male unemployment rate in my constituency of over 10 per cent. The figures we have are the worst since the 'thirties. There is very widespread concern in Scotland—more widespread concern than I have known—about the present position. That is exemplified by the fact that today we have had no fewer than 91 Scottish local authorities lobbying Labour and Conservative Members of Parliament. Some also wanted to see the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I do not draw from that lobbying the conclusion that this is a non-political issue because councillors of all kinds of political persuasions were involved, but I do draw from it—and this I emphasise to the Government—the very considerable and widespread concern there is in Scotland at present, even among the Government's own traditional supporters, in local authorities, industry, commerce and generally.
I do not believe that the excuse that has been made time and again—and we had it again today and no doubt we shall have it again in the Government's reply—that this situation is all, somehow or other, the fault of an inheritance in June, 1970, really stands serious examination, so I shall not spend time on it.
Hon. Members opposite were elected in June, 1970, on a false prospectus, and it was soon seen by business and by trade unions that they had been elected on a false prospectus. There is one thing that has depressed me almost more than anything else about the present position. It is that some of us in Scotland and in other development areas who have lived with unemployment at higher rates than the average rates for the United Kingdom as a whole recognised the deteriorating situation and the exceptionally incipient gravity of the situation at least a year ago and expressed our very deep concern at that time to the Government.
We expressed our concern at the time of the October, 1970, measures, when Ministers, including the Secretary of State for Scotland, were saying that the Budget then would provide a new impetus to the economy, and to the regions in particular. We told them that the situation was deteriorating, that it was decreasing confidence in the business as well as the trade union community, and that unless considerable stimulus was given quickly to the economy the unemployment situation and the exceptional incipient of hand. Unfortunately, that is what has happened over the last year.
It has happened not simply because of the Government's incompetence, although incompetence is one of the major factors in this situation; it has also happened because the Government were very well willing to use unemployment as a weapon against high wage claims and inflation. But the fact is that this use of unemployment, even if it were effective—it has not been effective—would be effective only at completely unacceptable rates of unemployment and rates very much higher even than the present rate.
Singling out high wage claims and wage inflation as a unique factor in the situation which requires to be dealt with, and using unemployment as one of the weapons to deal with that particular problem as the Government saw it, is one of the cardinal mistakes made by the Government over the past year. Again, it is a mistake against which we warned them, as even the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) pointed out in his interesting speech earlier today.
Another factor in the situation is the "lame duck" philosophy, and the deliberate intention to demonstrate that this was a tough Government which would deal with industry toughly. That again has been a major factor in leading to the loss of confidence in industry at present. I cannot think that in the U.C.S. situation, in particular, one could have a more flagrant example of looking only at short-term considerations and completely failing to understand the long-term implications of what is involved. We have had this not only in U.C.S. but also in Rolls-Royce until pressure from this House and elsewhere made the Government, fortunately in that particular case, change course. But, again, the general attitude there has very considerably contributed to the lack of confidence generally.
Another major mistake, which again was pointed out at the time, was the changes in regional incentives that were announced in October, 1970. Whatever the arguments may be in another situation for the removal of investment grants, for example, and their replacement by tax allowances, in the particular situation in which that change was made—I repeat that this was pointed out at the time—that was the worst possible change to make in terms of regional incentives. British industry, and Scottish industry in particular, which shortsightedly in the first instance welcomed the change, has now increasingly come to see that this has been a major deteriorating factor in the situation in the regional areas. Again, the announcement, completely gratuitously, unnecessarily and damagingly, that the regional employment premium was to be cancelled as from 1974 has been a serious factor in the loss of confidence in the development areas.
We warned the Government against all these various deliberate actions that they need not have taken. Over the last 18 months we have had created a situation in which unemployment is now virtually out of control, and in which it was demonstrated by the Chancellor's speech today that the Government have no very clear idea how now to tackle it. One of the depressing features of the situation is that the Chancellor has obviously so little grip on it. He was unable to answer even the simplest question on interventions during his speech, and any-

thing more complicated sends him into a complete tizzy. There is no confidence in the trade union movement, in industry or in the economy generally when there is such a conspicuous lack of leadership at the highest level, particularly from the Chancellor.
Many of the things done by the Government recently have been, in themselves and taken by themselves, measures taken too late and measures which have been tending to trifle with the situation rather than deal with it at its roots. Many of the measures taken are obviously very desirable in themselves. It is, I suppose, a certain irony that the use of the public expenditure weapon now seems to be virtually the only weapon that the Government feel able to use. The advancement of the orders for naval vessels, the bringing forward of nationalised industries' capital expenditure announced today, and the improvement in the whole social services expenditure announced yesterday, are very much to be welcomed, and we on this side of the House are very happy to see this being done. But there are a number of other things which the Government ought to do in the public sector that are not being done at present. Just as in the situation in a regional development area it is as important to preserve existing employment as it is to bring new employment to the area, similarly in the nationalised industries it is as important to protect and preserve existing jobs as it is to allow them, for example, to bring forward their capital expenditure.
In Scotland we have two very good examples of that at present. First, there is the closure of the Barassie workshops of British Rail, which the Government should not allow in any circumstances whatever. There are 460 jobs involved here, and immediately involved, and what we require is a Government directive that British Rail should not be allowed to close down the Barassie workshops.
We have another situation with the British Steel Corporation. Leaving aside the question of major developments like Hunterston, we have a threat to several hundred jobs at the administration headquarters of the tubes division in Glasgow. I see that a Minister very foolishly said yeserday that that was a matter only for the British Steel Corporation and that the Government were not in any way to


intervene. If the Government can intervene in the matter of capital expenditure, there is no reason why there should not be firm Government intervention in this issue. The British Steel Corporation, if the necessity arises, should be told that in no circumstances should these jobs be lost in Scotland and, similarly, in no circumstances should similar jobs be allowed to fall out in any other development area.
Apart from what is done on the question of public expenditure, I agree with the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South that a general stimulus to the economy is required. I do not accept either the analysis of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West nor echoes of it from this side about technological unemployment. This is not a new idea. From time to time it arises as a new analysis of the situation.
If the right hon. Gentleman would occasionally widen his horizons beyond the shores of the United Kingdom and consider what is happening in the other countries where, with considerable technological development and considerable improvements in productivity, there is an accompanying unemployment trend which makes our figures even more shameful, he would see the fallacy of the argument. However, even if the argument were valid, the prescription for the cure which the right hon. Gentleman gave—namely, that somehow or other the Government should encourage the speeding up of the technological process—would make matters worse rather than better.

Mr. Powell: The fact that this phenomenon is general is a support, not a refutation, of the analysis, especially as it is occurring in economies which are very differently managed in other respects.

Mr. Millan: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I say that it is not occurring. Fortunately, the situation in Britain is not repeated elsewhere. It is the unique achievement of the present Government that Britain has a low productivity rate, a high balance of payments surplus, raging inflation and very serious unemployment all at the same time. There is not another developed country which can show that appalling combination of circumstances. I therefore do not believe that a false analysis of that kind should allow the situation to be obscured and

should be used as an argument against giving the economy a general stimulus.
Apart from giving the economy a general stimulus, the Government should admit that their changes in regional policy have been mistaken and have failed. A little humility from the Chancellor, in view of his record, would be welcome. If he would occasionally say, "The Government's actions have been mistaken and we shall reverse them", he would command more respect not only on this side of the House but in the country as a whole.
There is now an overwhelming case for saying that the regional employment premium will be continued and that we shall return to the investment grant position. Particularly in the Scottish context, there is an overwhelming case for a major effort in public expenditure, hopefully Hunterston development, which would give a general stimulus to the economy and help in a way which nothing else would do to recreate some of the confidence that has been lost over the last 12 or 18 months.
Unfortunately, nothing that is now done—none of the measures announced either today or yesterday—will prevent an extremely critical situation from developing over the winter months with the unemployment rate obviously rising well above the million mark. Even though that is so, and even though no measures which could now be taken would have an immediate short-term effect, this is not a good argument for doing nothing. It strengthens the argument for taking much more vigorous action now.
One of the dangers in this situation, with the Government persisting in believing that the measures already taken will somehow or other take effect when they have worked through the economy, is that even when they do work—some, at least, are bound to work more effectively in due course than they have up to now—we shall still have a rate of unemployment which we on this side at least would regard as utterly unacceptable, and, moreover, within that general high rate of unemployment there will remain an extremely critical situation in the regions. I do not believe that the measures taken so far, unless accompanied by powerful regional incentive measures, will solve the problems of Scotland, Wales and the other regions.
The present situation is recognised as critical by virtually every strand of public opinion in Scotland today. The local authorities have spoken today. The trade unions will speak tomorrow. We in this House may be able to make moderate speeches in a debate of this kind, we may contain our anger, our resentment and our frustration, but those who are themselves unemployed, and those trade unionists over whom the threat hangs, do not feel the same moderation. They are not able to express their views with the same calmness. They express themselves with anger and bitterness, and it is a bitterness compounded by their knowledge, which we share, that all this was completely unnecessary and could have been avoided if the Government had taken the action which we on this side have pressed upon them during the past 18 months.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Idris Owen: I have listened with great interest to the speeches from the Opposition benches today. I have been deeply impressed by today's debate, and I have always been most concerned about the problem of unemployment. I had the unfortunate experience of entering industry from school at a time when there were almost 3 million people unemployed and, as it was known in those days, on the dole. In the main, in those days, the people on the dole were those whom we would call the breadwinners. Today, I respectfully suggest, there are not quite so many breadwinners unemployed in relation to the total as there were at that time.
I do not criticise the Opposition for putting down their Motion. They are perfectly justified in so doing and they would be failing in their duty if they did not criticise the level of unemployment today. But they are not themselves without blame. I shall devote my modest contribution to the offering of some minor practical short-term solutions, but I must at the outset issue a note of warning If we carry on talking as we are about unemployment, we shall be in danger of creating a weakening of confidence in this country.

Mr. Ogden: Should we keep quiet about it, then?

Mr. Owen: Too much talk can weaken the confidence of industry in this country. We are now reaching a point at which we are in danger of talking ourselves into a greater measure of unemployment. I am satisfied in my own mind that in a reasonably short space of time, we shall considerably reduce unemployment. I am convinced that the long-term strategy is right. I am convinced also that in the short term we can take measures which will tend to reduce the figure below the emotive one million mark. I realise that there is much political advantage to be gained from referring to one million unemployed. A million unemployed can mean a million votes.

Mr. Ray Carter: They would not vote Tory anyway.

Mr. Owen: It was not a Conservative who said in the House:
Any worker by hand or brain who goes slow or is an absentee, or demands more money for no more output, is, in fact, doing his best to put up his own household bills and to put somebody—quite possibly himself—out of a job."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th September, 1949; Vol. 468, c. 32.]
That was the late Sir Stafford Cripps, and he was no Conservative. The basics were right then and I am sure that they are right today.
What can we do in the short term? I am very interested in the short-term situation. In the North-West, where I spend most of my time when I am away from here, I find that the statistics presented by Employment Department officers are phoney in many ways, particularly with regard to vacancies. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, in answer to a Question from the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. Orbach) on unemployment in our joint constituency town, said that there were 52 vacancies for men and three for women in engineering, construction, vehicle building, woodworking and printing, occupations generally regarded as skilled. The hon. Member for Stockport, South rightly calculated from that information that there were 26 men chasing one job. As an employer of labour in that town, however, I have to say that we have over 100 vacancies in our company in the construction industry. There is a big shortage of workers in that industry, and the vacancy figures are phoney in the extreme.
There are at present 80 column inches of advertising in the Manchester Evening News begging for construction industry labour, and four or five pages asking for labour generally. In the London Evening News there are columns and columns of announcements asking for labour. Millions of pounds are being spent on advertising for labour. My company spends 10 times as much on advertising for labour as we do on advertising the commodity we produce. So there is something radically wrong. The going rate for craftsmen in my industry is 51p an hour. But firms are advertising for labour at £1·37 an hour. That indicates not an excess of labour available but a desperate shortage.
There is an imbalance in the country that needs to be rectified, and I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and hon. Members on both sides to direct their energies to ensuring that there is a balance. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has complained about unemployment in Liverpool, but there is a shortage of labour in the construction industry in the Manchester conurbation. Are the unemployed prepared to move?
The situation is the same on the apprentice training side. In 1906 there were 1,800 apprentices indentured in the construction industry in the North-West. This year we shall not reach 1,000 and next year, when the school-leaving age is raised, we shall not have indenturing for a year. There will be a gap, and we shall be desperately short of apprentices. Because of production bonuses, craftsmen do not find time to train the apprentices. Moreover, the lump has intervened; the lump merchants do not want to train apprentices either. There will be a desperate shortage of apprentices, and I invite my right hon. Friend to consider a crash programme to train apprentices in my industry.
We have been promised that capital will be poured into the construction industry, civil engineering, and so on, to stimulate growth. My local authority is asking me to invite the Minister to meet a deputation from it, because it has been waiting five years for a decision on a road programme worth £18 million. If it had the clearance to go ahead, it would do so tomorrow. The plans are ready. A great deal could be done in

the present situation if we showed the will to do it. Long-term strategies are not all that we need. We can resolve part of the problem, however small a part, forthwith by a little common sense.
I suggest that what we should try to do is a crash programme for the retraining of those unfortunate people who have been made unemployed in industries where they will not again be employed. In my constituency, at least 1,000 machine tool workers lost their jobs when a factory closed down and they will not be employed as machine-tool workers in that town again. However much we reflate, they will not be re-engaged in the machine-tool industry. Another 1,000 jobs were lost at the Hawker-Siddeley plant. I do not think that the group could re-engage them even if it were given new large orders. There must be retraining in the light of present-day needs. We are crying out for labour in my industry, and there is shortage of such labour in London and North Wales. I urge a crash retraining programme which would absorb some of those who are unemployed.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: The training of people in any industry depends to some extent on the degree of co-operation from management. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us some of the experience of the Construction Industry Training Board, which has found an enormous resistance among employers to participating in its work?

Mr. Owen: I would be the first to criticise the industry in which I have spent my working life. I said initially that there has, for example, been too much emphasis on production bonuses. One cannot start craftsmen unless one gives them £40 to £50 a week and they are not interested in reducing their production capacity in order to train youngsters in craftsmen skills. In addition there there is the lump, which does not want to train boys either. So there is a resistance. Perhaps the board could create a crash training apprenticeship school of its own. That may be possible.
What I am suggesting is that there are many approaches to the problem of immediate unemployment which we have not yet explored. I repeat and emphasise that there is no doubt that the vacancy notification is utterly phoney at local employment exchanges. I am sorry to


have to say it, but when one asks why employers are not notifying their vacancies to the Department, the answer is that they have experienced a period of relatively full employment for many years and the type of labour which has been available to them from the Department has not been the type they have wanted. They have, therefore, chosen to spend millions of pounds in direct advertising for labour. If they could have filled their demand from the Department, they would not have needed to spend millions of pounds on advertising. They do it because the type of labour they want never seems to come from the Department.
Let us not be misled by the vacancy figures which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment receives from his Department. They are utterly phoney. They do not mean a thing. Let us get down to the grass roots of the situation and recognise that a fantastic amount of labour is needed in the country and that it is a matter of sensible redeployment. That is one angle of approach. It is not a big angle, but at least it is one angle of approach by which we might modestly begin to reduce the unemployment figure.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: I have only four minutes, and, as I keep my promises, I shall confine myself to that time.
Four minutes is not nearly enough time to answer the formidable speech of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I regard that speech, in spite of my disagreements with the right hon. Gentleman on other issues, as the one important speech to have been made from the Government side in the debate, and I ask my hon. Friends not to disregard it because of its source, because its premises could be carried through to conclusions quite different from those that we expect from the right hon. Gentleman.
But it is a fact, and I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) will bear this in mind when he replies to the debate, that the present level of unemployment and the present type of unemployment are totally inexplicable in terms of the type of analysis which we all more or less accepted 25

years ago. We are confronted with a different kind of problem.
As I do not have the time to engage in the usual practice of the House of insulting quotations exchanged between one side and the other, which is the normal substitute for debate, perhaps I may be permitted to quote myself, in rather peculiar circumstances in that an article that I once wrote was quoted with considerable approval in the other place. I am perfectly well aware that I cannot quote from the other place, but I take it that I do not stretch the bounds of order too widely if I quote myself as quoted in another place. What, apparently, I wrote and had totally forgotten, and what is, to a great extent, not confirmation but anticipation of what the right hon. Gentleman said was:
Ministerial power is exercised today in a strange environment. No longer can a Chancellor correctly anticipate the result x from fiscal measure A. People spend more when according to past habits they should be spending less. That intangible thing confidence comes and goes like spring showers. Human behaviour in fact seems to have gone random and this, while not making governmental planning impossible, makes it damnably difficult.
It seems that four years ago when I wrote that I was rather more sensible than perhaps I am now.
I do not accept that pump priming by and of itself will bring down this these terribly high unemployment figures to any large extent. If there is to be pump priming, it must be highly selective, both in the geographic and the technological sense. If confidence is to be restored on both sides of industry—and it should not be forgotten that people on the one side of industry are as important as those on the other—there must be some kind of consistency in the policies pursued in other respects by the Government.
My third and final point, and I now have to sit down—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I gave a promise and, unlike right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench, I always keep my promises—is that what has to be scotched in this debate is the total fallacy—which I ascribe more to ignorance than to malevolence, being a charitable sort of fellow—that this high level of unemployment is in any way due to the steady pressure of wage demands in the economy. I have never been able to find a causal link between these two totally unrelated


phenomena, and when I put a series of Questions to the Department of Employment—I must not add "productivity" any more—to establish such a link in my constituency, answer came there none.
I finish on this note, much as I should love to continue a 50-hour argument with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, and perhaps we may continue it in the Press: the one thing necessary to restore confidence in all sectors of industry is that the Government will show some consistency in their policies and some confidence in themselves.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) for having kept his promise, as far as I can tell, to the minute and probably to the second as well. I congratulate him on having put his argument with a force which equalled its succinctness and with a succinctness which equalled its force.
This is the second debate on this subject in two weeks, but the Motion today is in sharper terms than that a fortnight ago, and I think that a return to this subject, even without last week's unemployment figures, would have been overwhelmingly justified in view of the complete absence of any adequate answers from the Government on the last occasion. On that occasion, the Chancellor—and this is always a sign of strain at the Treasury—scurried back to his Central Office briefs about the last Government for a large part of his speech. Nor do I think that the best friend of the Lord President, and he has many friends, would take the view that his winding-up speech was a totally satisfactory, comprehensive survey of the Government's hopes and plans for dealing with unemployment.
A further debate would therefore, in my view in any event, have been highly desirable to try to get some clear answers out of the Government. We have not got them yet. The Chancellor this afternoon gave us a few ameliorative plans, and I welcome them as far as they go. He will recollect that two weeks ago I urged the speeding-up of investment in the nationalised industries. The measures announced today are too late and not

nearly enough. One is bound to ask about one or two gaps in the plan, notably the absence of anything relating to the steel industry, which would have been particularly appropriate for bringing forward in these circumstances.
I suspect also that those plans, already too late and not enough, would have been later still if this debate had not been announced for today. Certainly, the Leader of the House gave not the slightest indication last Thursday that any announcement was due this week. I do not think that there were any plans last Thursday; there may have been some by Friday, ready for announcement this week, but no doubt that had a good deal to do with the Press reaction to this debate.

Mr. Barber: The plans were decided by the Government before the right hon. Gentleman intervened last Thursday.

Mr. Jenkins: Will the Chancellor then tell us why the Leader of the House gave no indication of any plans to announce these proposals which the Government presumably regard as of major importance? Was it his intention to deal with the unemployment situation by keeping those plans secret as long as possible? If this was not the intention, his actions do not make sense.

Mr. Barber: The right hon. Gentleman said he assumed that the plans had not been decided upon before he intervened. I have given him the answer. They were decided upon by the Government—all the plans which I have announced today. That is surely reasonable, and in due time the announcement would have been made.

Mr. Jenkins: I have no doubt that if we had waited long enough the Government would have been forced to come out with plans modifying their previous proposals. There was not the slightest indication that the Government were coming forward with anything this week, and the Chancellor has not contradicted that. What we still do not have from the Chancellor is any coherent explanation of the Government's strategy in dealing with unemployment and the guide posts for the future which will show whether or not that strategy is succeeding.
We shall expect from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for


Employment answers to these questions, some indication of what are the immediate plans for the future and the stages by which the Government hope to see whether their employment strategy is beginning to succeed. In particular I would ask him a few specific questions. They are simple questions, and I hope he will be able to give clear answers. They go to the centre of the Government's approach and are questions on which the House is entitled to be informed.
This debate is also pegged to the November unemployment figures. There can be no doubt about their seriousness. It is not only the absolute level, appalling though that is; it is also the fact that in the past month the number of wholly unemployed, seasonally adjusted, has risen faster than in any month since the two exceptionally bad ones of the spring and early summer of this year. It is this question of the wholly unemployed, seasonally adjusted, which the right hon. Gentleman will agree is the key figure from the point of view of the underlying trends and from the point of view of the prospect. Male unemployment throughout the country is now shown as 5·5 per cent. with variations. The South-East is still the best, despite a substantial increase to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) referred, with a rate of 3·1 per cent., and Scotland the worst with 8·6 per cent.
I was sorry not to hear the speech of the noble Member for Edinburgh. North (Earl of Dalkeith). We were glad to hear that he was speaking again in this House, and even more glad because, I gather, he spoke with great forthrightness about the Scottish unemployment problem. The Scottish position in Great Britain is the worst at 8·6 per cent., but the Northern Region is 8·4 per cent. and in the West Midlands there is now a rate of 7·6 per cent. wholly unemployed males—a level which I do not believe has been approached, certainly not in the city of Birmingham, not merely since 1939 but since much further back in the 1930s, towards the depths of the depression days.
It has been a feat of organising genius of which the Chancellor and the Employment Secretary can jointly be proud to produce in Birmingham a near-record of motor car sales and a record level of

unemployment at the same time. [Interruption.] I could not distinguish any sound coming from the benches opposite; if I had I would endeavour to answer it. What we have just seen is a general and national movement, accentuated in particular areas, and resulting in one of the worst monthly increases we have ever known in the number of wholly unemployed.
The first question I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman is this: was this expected by the Government at the time of the July measures? Was it then the internal view of the Government that the position had already been allowed to get so bad that nothing could prevent a disastrous autumn? If so, this was certainly not the impression which the Chancellor gave in July. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn quoted the remarks he made not, I think, in the debate but when introducing his statement on the July measures, which showed that he was expecting an improvement in a few months. The more likely explanation is that in July the Chancellor expected a small pick-up, but he got it wrong, as he did last October, as he did last February, as he did last April and as he has probably done again today—admittedly, it must be said, as Mr. Macleod did in July, 1970, and I did in April of that year. We all over-estimated the growth of demand. But where the right hon. Gentleman is unique is that he has made the same mistake over and over again in the face of the most deliberate and considered warnings, and at very heavy expense to the unemployed, their dependants and the whole economy.
What we have now is not a controlled dip in employment, with the Government callously and calmly waiting for the appointed improvement—and let us not forget how much faster employment has decreased than registered unemployment has increased. What we have now is employment spiralling down, with very little Government idea why it is happening, how far it will go, or when it will turn. Let us at least have a simple answer from the Secretary of State: when the July measures were set in train was this major deterioration in the autumn foreseen or was it not?
I have a second question for the right hon. Gentleman: do the Government accept essential responsibility for the


level of employment? By that I do not mean that, if they wish, they cannot continue with their puerile little argument, attempting to blame it all on us. If that pleases them, let them do it. It is not true, and with every month that goes by it strikes the country as increasingly childish and irresponsible. If they cannot grow up into being a Government, that is their affair; the more they use this argument the more it damages them, and not us. I therefore leave that argument aside.
What I intend to do by asking my second question is to raise the much more fundamental issue of whether the Government are receding from the basic principle in the 1943 White Paper and taking refuge in the view that if there is severe inflation in the economy it absolves them from their central employment responsibility.
The Chancellor asked me a question about that point this afternoon. I do not for a moment dispute that it is highly desirable to bring down the rate of both wage and price inflation. That would improve our competitive position for the future, make the economy easier to manage, and produce a fairer system for many groups in the community. I have never under-estimated the inflationary difficulties which this Government took over. Balanced against that, they took over great balance of payments strength. I do not for a moment believe that they took over an uncontrollable unemployment situation, but they took over considerable inflationary difficulties.
What I dispute is, first, that inflation has been the prime cause of unemployment growth in the past year. What I dispute even more strongly is that failure on the part of the Government to deal with inflation in any way justifies them in washing their hands of the unemployment problem, saying, "It is nothing to do with us; it is all the fault of people who are pricing themselves out of a job." They have not done that completely. They have hovered between two contradictory approaches: half the time applying ineffective stimulants—too small and too late—and half the time plaintively saying that it is nothing to do with them and it is the fault of those who drove themselves into unemployment. Goodness knows, there is little enough hard

evidence of this. In all too many cases it is the worst-paid who have been worst hit by unemployment. In all too many cases it is the most restrained who have been given the reward of redundancy notices. In any event, the Government will never get unemployment substantially down as long as they half welcome it—that has certainly been their attitude; I put it no higher than that—as a weapon—I believe an ineffective weapon—to deal with wage increases.
Therefore, will the Secretary of State please clear up the second point: do the Government accept this central responsibility or are they retracting from the position which every British Government until them since the end of the war have accepted?
I come now to the Chancellor's reiterated defence of his own position without which—it is, perhaps, natural—he never makes a speech: that he has pumped the record sum of £1,400 million into the economy and that, therefore, he has done everything which anyone could expect him to do to deal with unemployment.
I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question when he was making that point this afternoon and contrasting it with the circumstances—very different circumstances and very different problems with which to deal—in which I had to impose heavy taxation. I asked why it was that as a result of that imposition, which the right hon. Gentleman worked out at £1,400 million, unemployment varied by only 26,000 between November, 1967, and June, 1970, whereas with his measures of giving away £1,400 million it has risen by over 300,000 in 17 months. It will be within the recollection of the House that he did not make any serious attempt to answer that question this afternoon. He has now had time to think about it and possibly even to consult his officials. If he would like to give me an answer now, I should be happy to give way to him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] It is a little late at this stage for the Chancellor to try to get the answer from the Secretary of State for Employment. It might have been a good idea earlier in the evening, but the moment for it has now gone.
Noting that the right hon. Gentleman has no more desire to answer this evening


on consideration than he had this afternoon without consideration, although I thought it was a sufficiently fundamental point that he might have had the answer in the forefront of his mind, I turn to three points which I should like to make on his £1,400 million.
First, the test in dealing with unemployment is the result, not the effort. The Chancellor is like a motor manufacturer who, when confronted with broken-down cars along the roadsides all over the country, points out that he has already spent more money paying for repairs than any other motor manufacturer in the world has ever been known to do. That is a result which is unlikely to give either much consolation for the present or much confidence for the future.
The second point is that the £1,400 million, as the Chancellor knows, is a false figure. It is not a net figure. It takes no account of the approximately £400 million which he has clawed back from the community, and mainly from the worst off members of the community, in increased social welfare charges of all sorts. What has been the possible point of these vicious impositions at a time of demand deficiency and mounting unemployment? The Government plod on with them, however, with a stubborn meanness which is as socially vindictive as it is economically nonsensical.
Last Thursday we had the crushing unemployment figures, the worst since 1939, which are the basis of this debate tonight. What piece of action in the social or economic field did the Government announce on that same day? What was their immediate response to the challenge? So far as I can discover, it was only one—the threat to surcharge 25 Midlothian county councillors for continuing to supply free milk to school children. They are saving resources, saving them in one of the areas of highest unemployment, saving them in a peculiarly mean way—saving them for what, in present circumstances?
Third, on his £1,400 million, does it occur to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he contemplates both the deficiency and the pattern of demand, that he may have given some of the £1,000 million net, or £600 million I think it is in this financial year, to the wrong people? Savings are up certainly, but this does not

help unemployment, particularly if investment is as sluggish as it is now and shows, I regret to say, every sign of remaining so. The Chancellor this afternoon congratulated himself on improved engineering orders. I agree that they were a chink of light but, to be seen in context, it should be remembered that the improvement still leaves them lower than they were a year ago today.
What else is there? There is the beginning of a durable consumer goods boom, but it is concentrated on far too narrow a segment of the economy and is inherently unstable by its very nature. More basic patterns of expenditure on food, clothing and fuel show very little if any real growth. That is not only a cause of holding back the economy; it is also a result of millions of people—the old, the low-paid, and the unemployed—having no opportunity at all to increase their purchases of the necessities of life. Indeed, in many cases they have suffered—and not only the unemployed—a real fall in their standard of living as a result of the accumulated policies of the present Government.
The Government's deliberate and regressive redistribution has not only been socially wrong. It has also produced an imbalance of purchasing power which is a menace to the healthy development of the economy and the enemy of a rapid decrease in unemployment. This imbalance applies both between industries and between regions.
In view of present unemployment figures, what defence do the Government now put up for their dismantling of any effective regional policy? With male unemployment of 8·6 per cent. in Scotland, 8·4 per cent. in the Northern Region, and nearly 7 per cent. in Wales, with no real hope for the future in any of these regions, with the creation of new jobs and new factories, as measured by the granting of industrial development certificates, pitiably low by the standards of recent years, what sense does it make to have damaged the regional incentive to the extent that as Dr. Rhodes, of the Cambridge Department of Applied Economics, has calculated, the changes in investment provisions have reduced the differential incentive in the regions on £100 of investment from £12 to £2? What sense does it make in these circumstances


to proceed with the abolition of R.E.P. in 1974?
The difficulty, of course, about the Government's whole position is that all the weapons available to them to deal with unemployment—both those which they are hesitantly using and those which they should be using—run directly counter to their basic economic philosophy. Does anyone doubt that? What is their basic economic philosophy? It is to lower public expenditure, cut taxes in favour of those who save more of their income, reduce the rôle of the public sector, hive off as much nationalised industry as possible, give no support to private industry except where it is already profitable, make regional incentives a function of profit—

Sir G. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Jenkins: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees. I think that I was giving a fair account of basic economic Tory belief at the present time. That is the theory. It has been proclaimed over and over again that it is not invariably the practice, even with the present Government. Sometimes they hesitate, but as unemployment mounts and their unpopularity mounts with it they will hesitate even more.
Some in those circumstances—most notably the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West—cry "Back to our dogmas". The right hon. Gentle-mean weaves a web of such intellectual elegance that very few notice that it is economic nonsense—false premises carried to an extremity of conclusion which, if carried out, would mean suffering and disruption on a scale which he occasionally talks about in another context but which we have never known and need never know in this country.
The issue within the Conservative Party is perhaps symbolised by the argument over the future of the Giro—

Sir G. Nabarro: Scrap it.

Mr. Jenkins: I am not really very impressed with the hon. Member's views; this goes far deeper within the Conservative Party.
The Government have just come down on the right side here, but there were many on the benches opposite, and no

doubt some within the Government, who would much rather have seen 3,000 jobs go on Merseyside, where unemployment is already over 50,000, than keep Giro going as a bit of public enterprise. That was a squalid argument but it is one which will have to be repeated many times. What is the sense of a Government depending on Tuesday, today, on the advancement of investment in nationalised industry because they cannot get private industry to move, and on Wednesday, as they propose to do tomorrow, bring forward a Bill to reduce the scope of public industry as much as they can?
What is the sense of denouncing public expenditure and needing it more and more—for example, on roads, hospitals, even defence spending—to try to contain unemployment? What is the sense of proclaiming that profits are the king and then failing to get a spark of investment enthusiasm out of most of the most profitable companies? The Government's policies have produced record post-war unemployment with inexorable speed. Their doctrinaire beliefs have strangled their attempts to deal with this problem. An uncontrolled market economy is as incapable of producing full employment now as it was in the 'thirties.
This Government will always hover—[Interruption.] There is very little evidence of the success of the policies of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. All the measures they take to try to stem the disastrous rise in unemployment are dependent on public enterprise or public spending. The truth of the matter is that this Government will always hover between their fears and dogmas. It will be the country, and above all the unemployed, who will pay the price, as they have done in the past 16 months.
On the issue of unemployment the Government have forfeited the confidence of the country. They will never regain it unless they give up their beliefs or their offices—or, preferably, both.

9.31 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): I will take up the last words of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) straight away.

Mr. Skinner: And resign?

Mr. Carr: We shall hold the confidence of the electorate because we intend to stick to the long-term policies in which we believe. They are based on a strategy of expansion and renewal. They will succeed, and at the end of this Parliament we shall be happy to stand and be judged on their success.
Before I reply to the detail and principles of the debate I am sure the House will agree with me on at least one point, and this was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford. It is the very great pleasure it gives us all to welcome back my noble Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) in a speaking capacity, as he was today. I am sure that we all look forward very much indeed to his future contributions.
May I tell my noble Friend at the outset that I agreed very deeply with one thing he said; namely, that I, too, would resign if I ever believed that unemployment was the policy of the Conservative Party? [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign!"] No one—certainly no party—has a monopoly of caring in this subject.
I was at school in London in the 'thirties and remember watching and hearing the marches of the unemployed from Jarrow. It was in revolt against that that I and many other men and women of my age took an active part in politics, and we shall continue that driving force in our political activities, some in one party and some in others. But our desire is the same, even if we differ about the means.
If hon. Gentlemen opposite are either too suspicious or too self-righteous to allow any genuineness of motives to anyone else, at least let them admit that the very base, and basic, motive—[Interruption.]—yes, "base" as well as "basic"; the base motive of self-interest and self-preservation. At least let them admit the basic motive that any Government must care and must act on this problem of unemployment. The Government have already acted, and acted in a massive way.
To answer at once the second of the two specific questions put by the right hon. Gentleman, we accept absolutely the essential responsibility for the level of unemployment. We accept that. We

have always made it clear that we do accept it. We said in the Queen's Speech that to increase employment is our first care. I therefore answer that question quite categorically.
But is the charge perhaps not one of caring but one of misjudgment? It is true, and we have admitted it, that our forecasts were proved wrong by events. It is true, and we have said so, that we would have acted sooner had our forecasts been different. It is true, also, that the measures we have taken are taking longer to have effect than we had hoped for or had reason to expect. That has been so right through this last year, and, to answer the right hon. Gentleman's first question, it is unfortunately true also of the July measures. We had expected to see effects sooner. So let me say that, too, quite clearly.
But, as the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to admit, we have no monopoly of misjudgment in this area. He himself said that he got the judgment wrong in his last Budget. When we took over and saw the forecast he had had, with the figures brought up to date, we accepted at that time the judgment he had accepted. Unfortunately, it proved to be wrong.
It is not as fair of the right hon. Gentleman to say, as he did say, that he had been wrong only once whereas my right hon. Friend had perhaps been wrong more than once. When the right hon. Gentleman was commenting in a television programme—I have the transcript here—on my right hon. Friend's Budget, he accepted that what my right hon. Friend had done in that Budget would, or at least should, be at least enough to prevent unemployment soaring as unfortunately it has soared. So even then the right hon. Gentleman was still misjudging the situation if we were. That is quite clear.

Mr. Jenkins: I also made it clear that as unemployment was already 200,000 above the too high level at which we had left it, I certainly thought that the aim of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was not realised, merely to hold it where it was, was far too modest.

Mr. Carr: But at least as to accuracy of forecasting and judgment the right hon. Gentleman's judgment as to what


was to happen was, unfortunately, wrong just as ours was, unfortunately, wrong.
Therefore, if we are to discuss this subject seriously, and I believe that that is what the country as a whole and most of the unemployed want, everyone has to admit that the sort of measures of demand management which appeared to work, and indeed did work, to control the overall level of unemployment in the past seem now to have lost at least some of their previous effectiveness, or, if not their effectiveness in the end in total, at least something of the speed at which they produced results, and it is worth noting that in the last year or so other countries have been having the same experience.
In the other words, we may be entering a period when the old principles of demand management based on Keynes and the rest may no longer be operating as Governments here of all parties, and Governments in many countries, had come to expect them, with justice, to work hitherto. Perhaps I may be allowed to return to that point a little later.

Mrs. Castle: We all appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's exercise in rather unusual honesty—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—but, though he says that the Government misjudged—that they planned for growth and failed to get it, and that, therefore, this high level of unemployment is due to their miscalculation—I must point out that he has not helped to a solution of this modern sophisticated problem by adopting the crude expedient of blaming it on high wage increases and on the trade unions.

Mr. Carr: Neither I nor any of my right hon. Friends has ever blamed it all—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] What we have said, what we still say, what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford has said, and what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition also said when he was Prime Minister, is that the levels of wage increases, when they became inflationary, are causes which aggravate unemployment, and the right hon. Lady knows that perfectly well. In his last Budget speech, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford laid down as one of the three essential requirements for the economy that wage settlements could not continue at the level at

which they were running under his management. So it is a factor, and it is absolutely idle and misleading to the country to deny that it is a factor.
This is a national problem and a very serious one, and we want to look seriously at what can and should be done about it. The problem and the cure lie very obviously indeed at two levels; first, at the level of the overall national policy in the overall rate of activity in the country; second, at the level of particular areas and particular industries.
It is no belittling of the very great problems of the particular areas and industries of which we have heard today from many hon. Members when I say that the most urgent need at present is to stimulate the rate of activity overall in the economy as a whole. We must get overall growth before there is the mobile expanding industry to attract to the difficult areas. I am sure that this diagnosis is confirmed by the fact that unemployment this year has risen proportionately less in the main development areas than in the country as a whole. So this is a factor. There are indices which show this.
I am not in any way belittling the very serious nature of unemployment in the regions. But what I am saying is that there can be no doubt that the first urgent need is to stimulate the rate of activity in the economy as a whole, because it will be when we have got an expanding economy again that the incentives to attract the new mobile industry into the development areas can become fully effective.

Mrs. Castle: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carr: No, I am afraid not.
I deny absolutely as nonsense the charge that we are dismantling regional policy. It simply is not true. It is true that we have made changes. We are making changes, and perhaps we shall make some more changes. But we are going to get growth, and when we get the growth we shall have effective incentives to see that a fair share of that growth goes into the areas.
If one looks back historically, the time when any Government showed the most signs of solving our regional problems was in the early 'Sixties—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—when we were pressing very hard on the policy of growth points


and infrastructure. The way in which unemployment has been limited, relatively speaking, to some of the growth point areas in the middle of some of the bigger and worst regions in this connection shows that this is so.
So the first objective is to get growth in the economy as a whole and growth based on efficiency and on future needs. We must stress this basis of future needs. It is no good pouring out precious resources into supporting undertakings which have no future in the modern world in which we live.
In this objective of obtaining growth in the economy as a whole we are acting in six main areas which we believe form a coherent strategy. First, we are acting in the area of the general stimulation of purchasing power. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say about the net effect of our £1,400 million, and even if I were to agree in part with him that the net effect is less than £1,400 million, it is still a very big injection, a bigger injection of purchasing power into the economy than there has been in a single year before.
Second, we are acting in the area of especial priming of investment. This is seen by our bringing forward the public sector investment announced by my right hon. Friend today. We are continuing to search for good, viable projects and shall not hesitate to bring more forward in time as they are identified. We are acting by bringing interest rates down and removing credit restrictions. We are acting by giving a two-year period of 80 per cent. tax allowances on investment and by giving free depreciation to service industries in the development areas.
The third area in which we are acting is that of attacking cost inflation. I have already mentioned this to some extent. Let no one forget that when we came to power nearly 18 months ago the situation was that earnings of all kinds were rising six times faster than national output. That had to be dealt with as a matter of first priority. It has been dealt with to a considerable extent. That position is now considerably improved. It is not yet fully solved. Therefore, my right hon. Friend rightly made clear in his speech in the debate a fortnight ago the vital importance of keeping up pressure on bringing down the level of settlements

nearer to the level of increase in the national output.
We are also acting in the fourth area of employment policy. I shall within the next few weeks be putting plans to Parliament for reforms in our employment services and for a very large expansion in our training programme. We have been getting on with the job in advance of putting forward these papers. For example, the number of Government training places, which was about 8,000 when I took over my present position from the right hon. Lady, is now 11,000 and will be 14,000 by the end of the winter. This is a rate of expansion about three times that which she achieved.
I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) and others that there is at the moment clearly a lack of matching in the labour market. It is urgent that these services be improved. There is a need also for more training. The training plans will, among other things, include the possibility of substantial improvement—in, for example, the construction industry. We are running a major campaign to fill the vacancies in the training centres, a matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North referred, and I am glad to be able to tell him that in the last two or three months the percentage occupancy rate has risen considerably.
The fifth area in which we are operating is the vital one of international currency and trading arrangements. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor referred to this today, and I am sure that the right hon. Member for Stechford will not expect me to go into this aspect in any detail; only Chancellors should do that. But I am sure that the whole House will have two considerations in mind in this connection. First, it will appreciate the vital nature of this problem if we are to have continued expansion in this country. Second, it will recognise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government have played a leading part in the international negotiations in this field. I do not believe that that can be denied by anyone.
The sixth area in which we are acting is the pursuit, now being brought to a successful conclusion, of our negotiations to join the European Community.


[Interruption.] We believe, as right hon. and hon. Members opposite believed when they were in Government—[Interruption.]—that membership of this most rapidly growing market will in the long run probably offer an incomparable incentive and opportunity to British industry.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House listened to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) for half an hour in complete silence. Are we not entitled to the same consideration from hon. Members opposite? May we have the protection of the Chair?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am told that the right hon. Member for Stechford was heard in comparative silence. I hope that the same courtesy will be extended to the Secretary of State for Employment.

Mr. Carr: Our action in all these six ways adds up to a coherent strategy on which to base a new and prolonged expansion in this country. The Government are creating the conditions for expansion. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Our policies offer a new prospect for British industry and business. We have turned the lights of our economy from red to green. [Laughter.] What we now ask for is a national response. We appeal to all local authorities to bring forward their plans and press on with their projects.

Mr. James Hamilton: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Carr: We appeal to all boards of directors to hasten their investment decisions and have confidence in the future. We appeal, also, to the trade unions to make and press their claims with realism and responsibility.
We are determined to have a strategy for growth and expansion. We are committed to this policy absolutely. If I may sum up—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The unemployed and the country generally will, I think, notice how little opportunity hon. Members opposite are prepared to give Government spokesmen to explain all that they are doing. I should like to give a summary of the 11 main points. We have reduced taxation by £1,400 million in a full year. We have

got rid of restrictions on consumer credit. We have released restrictions on bank credit. We have reduced Bank Rate to a lower level than it has been since there was last a Conservative Government. We have provided an extra £160 million for a crash programme of public works in the development areas. We have provided an extra £46 million of grants for the modernisation of old houses in the development areas. Old houses in the development areas and throughout the country are now being modernised at record and rising levels, employing much labour in the process.
We have brought forward £70 million of naval shipbuilding to help employment, particularly in Scotland and the North-East. We have stimulated local authorities to make much faster headway with the clearance of derelict land. In 1970, 50 per cent. more was cleared than in 1969, and this year clearance is going forward faster still. Next year there are to be no limits on expenditure for the clearance of derelict land. We have today announced the bringing forward of £160 million of capital expenditure by nationalised industries and the Government.
In the social services, the net effect of our increases in pensions and other social security benefits, the increase in primary-school building and the large additional Health Service expenditure have in net added significantly to purchasing power in the economy, and they will provide work directly through the jobs that the construction and fitting out of the extra facilities provide, together with the work available in them. We have launched a vast programme of new work to attack environmental pollution, of which the £800 million five-year plan for our rivers and seas is but a part. We have expanded our training programmes by a large percentage in the first 15 months, and that will go on.
That is a massive catalogue of actions already taken. Having taken those actions we now call on the whole country—and we believe that we have a right to call—for a response, to take up the challenge. We call on local authorities to go forward with working programmes. To industry we make the call to invest, and from the trade unions we ask for responsibility and realism in the way they make and press their claims.
Our actions have been designed to get the economy out of its six-year rut, to get it on the move again. We shall do it. We shall not cease until we have.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 311.

Division No. 14.]
AYES
[9.59 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lambie, David


Albu, Austen
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lamond, James


Allaun, Frank, (Salford, E.)
Ellis, Tom
Latham, Arthur


Allen, Scholefield
English, Michael
Lawson, George


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Evans, Fred
Leadbitter, Ted


Armstrong, Ernest
Ewing, Harry
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Ashley, Jack
Faulds, Andrew
Leonard, Dick


Ashton, Joe
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lestor, Miss Joan


Atkinson, Norman
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Barnes, Michael
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lipton, Marcus


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lomas, Kenneth


Baxter, William
Foley, Maurice
Loughlin, Charles


Beaney, Alan
Foot, Michael
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Ford, Ben
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Bennett James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Forrester, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bidwell, Sydney
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McBride, Neil


Bishop, E. S.
Freeson, Reginald
McCann, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Galpern, Sir Myer
McCartney, Hugh


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Garrett, W. E.
McElhone, Frank


Booth, Albert
Gilbert, Dr. John
McGuire, Michael


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mackie, John


Bradley, Tom
Gourlay, Harry
Mackintosh, John P.


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Maclennan, Robert


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)




Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Buchan, Norman
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marks, Kenneth


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marquand, David


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hamling, William
Marsden, F.


Cant, R. B.
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Carmichael, Neil
Hardy, Peter
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Harper, Joseph
Mayhew, Christopher


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Harrison, Waller (Wakefield)
Meacher, Michael


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hattersley, Roy
Mendelson, John


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mikardo, Ian


Cohen, Stanley
Heffer, Eric S.
Millan, Bruce


Coleman, Donald
Hilton, W. S.
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Concannon, J. D.
Hooson, Emlyn
Milne, Edward


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Horam, John
Mitchell, R. C. (Shampton, Itchen)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Molloy, William


Crawshaw, Richard
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Cronin, John
Huckfield, Leslie
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hughes Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Moyle, Roland


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Murray, Ronald King


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hunter, Adam
Oakes, Gordon


Davidson, Arthur
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Ogden, Eric


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Janner, Greville
O'Halloran, Michael


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Malley, Brian


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Orbach, Maurice


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Orme, Stanley


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
John, Brynmor
Padley, Walter


Deakins, Eric
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Paget, R. T.


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Palmer, Arthur


Delargy, Hugh
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pardoe, John


Dempsey, James
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Doig, Peter
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Dormand, J. D.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Pearl, Rt. Hn. Fred


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Pendry, Tom


Driberg, Tom
Judd, Frank
Pentland, Norman


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kaufman, Gerald
Perry, Ernest G.


Dunnett, Jack
Kelley, Richard
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Eadie, Alex
Kerr, Russell
Prescott, John


Edelman, Maurice
Kinnock, Neil
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)




Price, William (Rugby)
Skinner, Dennis
Urwin, T. W.


Probert, Arthur
Small, William
Valley, Eric G.


Rankin, John
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Spearing, Nigel
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Spriggs, Leslie
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Stallard, A. W.
Wallace, George


Richard, Ivor
Steel, David
Watkins, David


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Weitzman, David


Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Wellbeloved, James


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
White, James (Glasgow, Pollock)


Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Strang, Gavin
Whitehead, Philip


Roper, John
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Whitlock, William


Rose, Paul B.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Swain, Thomas
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Sandelson, Neville
Taverne, Dick
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Tinn, James
Woof, Robert


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Tomney, Frank



Sillars, James
Torney, Tom
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Silverman, Julius
Tuck, Raphael
Mr. Lames A. Duen and




Mr. John Golding.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Cooper, A. E.
Gummer, Selwyn


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cordle, John
Gurden, Harold


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Cormack, Patrick
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Costain, A. P.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Astor, John
Critchley, Julian
Hamllton, Michael (Salisbury)


Atkins, Humphrey
Crouch, David
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Awdry, Daniel
Crowder, F. P.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Haselhurst, Alan


Balniel, Lord
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hastings, Stephen


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Havers, Michael


Batsford, Brian
Dean, Paul
Hawkins, Paul


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hay, John


Bell, Ronald
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hayhoe, Barney


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Dixon, Piers
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Heseltine, Michael


Benyon, W.
Drayson, G. B.
Hicks, Robert


Berry, Hn. Anthony
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Higgins, Terence L.


Biffen, John
Dykes, Hugh
Hiley, Joseph


Biggs-Davison, John
Eden, Sir John
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Blaker, Peter
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Holland, Philip


Body, Richard
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Holt, Miss Mary


Boscawen, Robert
Emery, Peter
Horn by, Richard


Bossom, Sir Clive
Farr, John
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia


Bowden, Andrew
Fell, Anthony
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Howell, David (Guildford)


Braine, Bernard
Fidler, Michael
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Bray, Ronald
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Hunt, John


Brewis, John
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Iremonger, T. L.


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fookes, Miss Janet
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fortescue, Tim
James, David


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Foster, Sir John
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Bryan, Paul




Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Fowler, Norman
Jessel, Toby


Buck, Antony
Fox, Marcus
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Burden, F. A.
Fry, Peter
Jopling, Michael


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Gardner, Edward
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Carlisle, Mark
Gibson-Watt, David
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kershaw, Anthony


Cary, Sir Robert
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Kilfedder, James


Channon, Paul
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Kimball, Marcus


Chapman, Sydney
Goodhart, Philip
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Goodhew, Victor
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gorst, John
Kinsey, J. R.


Churchill, W. S.
Gower, Raymond
Kirk, Peter


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Kitson, Timothy


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gray, Hamish
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Clegg, Walter
Green, Alan
Knox, David


Cockeram, Eric
Grieve, Percy
Lambton, Antony


Cooke, Robert
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Lane, David


Coombs, Derek
Grylls, Michael
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry







Le Marchant, Spencer
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stainton, Keith


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Osborn, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Longden, Gilbert
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Loveridge, John
Parkinson, Cecil
Stokes, John


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Percival, Ian
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


MacArthur, Ian
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Sutcliffe, John


McCrindle, R. A.
Pink, R. Bonner
Tapsell, Peter


McLaren, Martin
Pounder, Rafton
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


McMaster, Stanley
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Tebbit, Norman


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Madden, Martin
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Thomas, John Strading (Monmouth)


Madel, David
Raison, Timothy
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Maginnis, John E.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Tilney, John


Marten, Neil
Redmond, Robert
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Mather, Carol
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Trew, Peter


Maude, Angus
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Mawby, Ray
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Vickers, Dame Joan


Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Waddington, David


Miscampbell, Norman
Ridsdale, Julian
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Moate, Roger
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wall, Patrick


Molyneaux, James
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Walters, Dennis


Money, Ernie
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Ward, Dame Irene


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Rost, Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Monro, Hector
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Montgomery, Fergus
St. John-Stevas, Norman
White, Roger (Gravesend)


More, Jasper
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Scott, Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wilkinson, John


Morrison, Charles
Sharples, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas


Mudd, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Murton, Oscar
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Simeons, Charles
Woodnutt, Mark


Neave, Airey
Sinclair, Sir George
Worsley, Marcus


Nicholls, Sir Harmer
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Younger, Hn. George


Normanton, Tom
Soref, Harold



Nott, John
Speed, Keith
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Onslow, Cranley
Spence, John
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Sproat, Iain
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

INDUSTRIAL COURT

10.12 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Norman Wylie): I beg to move,
That the Industrial Court (Appeals) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 3rd November, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: There are two orders and two regulations on the Order Paper, and I understand that it would be for the convenience of the House if they were taken together.

The Lord Advocate: That would be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker. The two orders relate to the Industrial Relations Act and the two regulations are consequential in so far as they relate to legal aid provisions in the event of the two orders being passed by the House.
The first order deals with England and Wales and the second with Scotland. They do two things. First, they transfer from the High Court and the Court of Session in Scotland to the Industrial Court appellate jurisdiction in respect of the Contracts of Employment Act, 1963, the Redundancy Payments Act, 1965, and the Equal Pay Act, 1970, which has not yet been activated. Secondly, they seek to confer on the new Industrial Court a similar jurisdiction in respect of new provisions whereby complaints of unfair industrial practices including unfair dismissal and other matters may be presented to an industrial tribunal.
The background to the two orders is as follows. The provisions of the Industrial Relations Act proceeded on the basis that it was, generally speaking, desirable that disputes which arose in the industrial area out of employer/employee relationships ought to be concentrated in specialist tribunals rather than the ordinary courts of the land.
It is against that background that Section 114—on the basis of which these orders are promoted—provides for appeals on questions of law to lie from industrial tribunals to the Industrial Court instead of to the High Court in England or the Court of Session in Scotland. As I shall shortly try to explain, not all the appellate jurisdiction from industrial tribunals is transferred in this way. A

residue of jurisdiction remains with our traditional courts. But where disputes arise out of an employer/employee relationship the intention is that the cases should be transferred to the new Industrial Court.
To put the matter briefly, if the House passes these orders, appeals from the industrial tribunals will go to the Industrial Court. Without these orders those appeals would continue to go to the ordinary courts by virtue of the provisions of Section 13 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1971, which was a consolidation Measure.
As the House is aware, the Industrial Court is now in being. It was set up under Section 99 of the Act, and the provisions of that Section were brought into force on 1st October last. The President of the Court is Mr. Justice Donaldson, and, along with another member of the English Bench, he will be sitting with a member of the Scottish Bench, Lord Thomson. The House will also be aware that last week Her Majesty appointed nine further lay members of that court. It is a unitary court—a Great Britain court—and its composition will be increased if the case load justifies it.
To put it colloquially, as from 1st December of this year, on the assumption that these Orders are passed by the House, the Industrial Court is ready for business and will exercise the jurisdiction which, by these Orders, has been passed to it.
I draw the attention of the House to Section 14 of the Act, which provides that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland have power, by order, to transfer to the Industrial Court appellate jurisdiction under a variety of Statutes which are set out in the Section and also in the first two orders. One is the Contracts of Employments Act, 1963, about which there has not been a great deal of litigation before industrial tribunals or before the courts. The case load under the 1963 Act has, in recent years at least, been negligible. The second Statute is the Redundancy Payments Act, 1965, in respect of which there is a continuing case load. The third statutory provision is the Equal Pay Act,


which has not yet been activated. The effect of the orders will be to transfer to the Industrial Court appellate jurisdiction from the industrial tribunals operating under these statutory provisions.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that these orders will transfer to a highly contentious court legislation that in the past has been dealt with very openly and justly in the other courts? It is the transferance of these items to which we basically object.

The Lord Advocate: I was coming to that. As I have endeavoured to set out before the House as fairly and openly as I can, the feeling behind this legislation is that when disputes arise either under the legislation to which I have just referred or under the provisions referred to in Section 114(1)(d) and (e)—the complaints provisions of the 1971 Act—or the provisions of Section 113 of the Act it would be desirable and preferable that jurisdiction should be exercised by a specialist tribunal in the form of the Industrial Court rather than by the ordinary courts.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman contends that this should be dealt with by a specialist tribunal, why should not that specialist tribunal be composed, particularly for appeals from the Registrar, as Donovan said, of an independent chairman and two members of the trade union movement?

The Lord Advocate: I think that the composition of the new Industrial Court strikes the right balance. It is presided over by Her Majesty's judges assisted by lay members who are familiar with the industrial scene.
The Equal Pay Act has not yet come into force, as hon. Gentlemen opposite are aware, but when it does, which will be not later than the end of December, 1975, there will be a small, but none the less significant, jurisdiction to be exercised under that legislation.
A major head of new jurisdiction for the tribunals, and, therefore, on appeal before the Industrial Relations Court, will flow from the complaints jurisdiction set out in the 1971 Act. In so far as that

relates to unfair dismissals, the expectation is that there will be a fairly substantial number of applications to the industrial tribunal and, as a consequence, a fairly substantial number of appeals to the Industrial Court.
As Section 113 is referred to in Section 114 of the Act to which I have just referred, I should say that it is not the Government's present intention to activate that section, which relates to damages for breach of contract of employment. Until we see the case load which falls upon the industrial tribunals and the Court it would be advisable, in the meantime at least, not to activate that section. So there is no reference in the Orders to the jurisdiction implied under Section 113 of the Act.
I mentioned that not all proceedings which come before the industrial tribunals are automatically transferred on appeal from the High Court to the Industrial Relations Court. The residue of jurisdiction which is unaffected by these orders and which will continue to be exercised is jurisdiction under the Industrial Training Act, 1964, to hear disputes about levies assessed by an industrial training Board; and under the Selective Employment Payments Act, 1966, there will still be jurisdiction to determine questions of registration. Appeals in those cases will go to the courts. Finally, under the Docks and Harbours Act, 1966, there are certain technical disputes about the meaning of "dock work" which it is not intended to, and the orders do not, transfer on appeal to the Industrial Relations Court.
I will deal with the English order, because the Scottish order is in similar terms apart from minor verbal differences.
The first two articles are really formal. The operative provision in both orders is article 3, which confers on the Industrial Court jurisdiction to entertain appeals on questions of law from the decisions of tribunals exercising the jurisdiction spelt out in the article. It applies irrespective of the date on which the decision was made; but—I will come to this in a few moments—if the High Court, or in Scotland the Court of Session, has started to consider an appeal from a decision made before 1st December, by virtue of article 6 that appeal remains unaffected by the order.


That means, in effect, that pending appeals which have not already come before the High Court will be covered by the order, and article 5 makes specific provision for dealing with them.
Article 4 is really complementary to article 3, because it picks up the implications of the concluding words of article 3 which provides that appeals
shall … lie to the Industrial Court and shall not lie to any other court.
Article 4 spells that out in some detail and has the effect of disapplying the provisions of Section 13 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1971, from the proceedings referred to in article 3. That is obviously sensible, because it would not be satisfactory to have two concurrent jurisdictions on appeal exercised by the Industrial Court and by the High Court and the Court of Session.
Article 5 deals with transitional provisions. The effect of article 5 is simply to provide—

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: How will the Industrial Court be constituted for the purpose of appeals on the Contracts of Employment Act? Will it have lay members as well as judges for this purpose, or will it consist of judges only?

The Lord Advocate: The Industrial Court as such is constituted by Her Majesty's judges and, I think, nine lay members. The court will work in divisions. What I expect is that in Scotland, for example, it would be Lord Thomson who would normally preside, with lay members. In England and Wales it would be one or other of the two judges; but it is a unitary court. It is essentially a Great Britain court, and one hopes that there will be considerable interchange between jurisdiction in England on the one hand and Scotland on the other.
Article 5 automatically transfers pending appeals, but, as the House will see, article 6 saves those appeals upon which the Court has already entered into consideration. There is one paragraph of article 5 to which I ought to draw attention, and that is that it confers on the Court a power which it does not otherwise have; namely, a general discretion to award costs or expenses in those cases in which appeals have been automatically

transferred from the courts to the Industrial Court. That is only right in principle, because it would be wrong to transfer automatically an appeal which was pending before the Court but upon which the Court had not entered into consideration, bearing in mind that the ordinary court has a general discretion to award expenses, whereas the Industrial Court does not. Article 6 saves the situation in which the High Court or Court of Session has entered upon consideration of an appeal. In those cases the appeal will remain with the court.
There is no question of any prejudice being sustained as a result of the provisions in articles 5 and 6, in the sense that the period within which an appeal can be taken to the Industrial Court will be the same as the period within which an appeal can be taken to the Court of Appeal, and a Scottish appellant will be granted an advantage, because at the moment the period within which an appeal can be taken in Scotland is only 21 days, but the appeal provisions under the Act and the rules made under it will provide for 42 days, which, as I understand it, is the position under the rules of the Supreme Court.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: I am not quite clear about this. Are we to understand that there is no provision, assuming a case has not been transferred but goes straight from the industrial tribunal to the Industrial Court, for costs of the appeal?

The Lord Advocate: The Industrial Court does not have a statutory power to make an award of costs except in the exceptional case where it is held that the appeal has been frivolous. That is in paragraph 24 of the Third Schedule to the Statute. But the provisions to which I have referred introduce a saving provision in the case of appeals presently pending and compulsorily transferred from the courts to the Industrial Court.
Paragraph 24 of the Third Schedule says that the only circumstances in which the Industrial Court can make an awards of costs is where
the proceedings were unnecessary, improper or vexatious, or … there has been unreasonable delay or other unreasonable conduct in bringing or conducting the proceedings.
That is the general statutory provision, but the provision to which I have referred


in both these orders relates to the transitional situation in which, in the discharge of this jurisdiction, certain pending appeals are transferred to the Industrial Court.
I would say something about the anticipated work load under this new jurisdiction. Under the present provisions, there are virtually no appeals; there are almost certainly none in Scotland, and certainly very few in England under the 1963 Act. Under the Redundancy Payments Act, 1965, there are roughly 50 appeals a year in England and Wales and 15 in Scotland. So it is expected that under that legislation there will be about 60 appeals a year.
When it comes to assessing the number of appeals from industrial tribunals under the 1971 Act, it must, of course, to some extent be speculative. But it is expected that under the complaints provisions there will be a substantial number of appeals to the Industrial Court. When the Equal Pay Act is activated, it is not expected that there will be a great number of appeals but, of course, there will be some.
It would obviously be right when one is transferring an appellate jurisdiction from the ordinary courts of the land to the new Industrial Court that provision should be made for legal aid. An undertaking was given to that effect. In these circumstances, there will not be much dispute between the two sides of the House. If the Industrial Court is to receive this new appellate jurisdiction, it is only right that some provision should be made to enable appellants to enjoy the same facilities of legal aid as they would otherwise have enjoyed had the appeal been taken to the Court of Appeal, or in Scotland, the Court of Session. That it is intended to do, and it is towards that end that the third and fourth regulations are directed.
I would only add—this arises out of the question of the limited discretion which the Industrial Court has on costs and expenses—that the normal provision under the existing provisions of the legal aid scheme is that there is a first charge in favour of the legal aid funds on any award which is made to an assisted person. Normally, of course, where an award of costs is made it is only the net balance, as it were, which is attached

by the legal aid fund. When the court cannot make any award of costs except in exceptional circumstances, some provision in equity obviously has to be made to avoid the erosion of an award which is made to an assisted person appearing before the Industrial Court. Regulations for this purpose will be laid in the near future. Regulations have to be made in any event to adapt the legal aid scheme to the procedures and special circumstances of the Industrial Court. These regulations will include provision so that no charge will be made by the Legal Aid Fund on any award made to an assisted person.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I understand that an estimate has been made of what is expected to be the cost of legal aid. May we be told about that and how that estimate has been arrived at?

The Lord Advocate: One can quantify with some accuracy the number of appeals likely to be taken under the 1965 Act. I have indicated what is the probable continuing figure in that respect. When one is dealing with applications to an industrial tribunal and appeals there from to the Industrial Court under the complaints jurisdiction set up by the 1971 Act it must be speculative. The best estimate that can be made is that it would be in the region of 50,000 a year.
I do not conceal the fact that this is very largely a rough estimate and entirely depends on the extent to which applications are made to the tribunals under the new jurisdiction which will be conferred on them. As the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware, legal aid is not open to incorporated or unincorporated bodies. It will apply only to individuals. I would have thought that, on the unfair dismissal jurisdiction which the legislation imposes on the industrial tribunals, there is bound to be a fair volume of litigation, and the estimate of that is the one that I have given.
I hope that, with that outline of the effect of this legislation and the reasons behind it, these orders and regulations will commend themselves to the House. Throughout the history of the parent legislation there has been violent disagreement, and strong views have been held.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: And still remain.

The Lord Advocate: I accept that, but, Parliament having taken the decision to enact that legislation, it is logical and proper that the consequential orders—and these are consequential orders—should be passed, and in that spirit I commend them.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: We have said time and again that the industrial relations legislation will be a lawyers' paradise. As I listened to the Lord Advocate and looked around the Chamber, that view was doubly confirmed. Indeed, for a moment I thought I was in the Inns of Court. Many distinguished members of the Bar are present tonight, which is an indication of the character of the Act and these orders.
The Lord Advocate described these as the first orders in connection with the Industrial Relations Act. It is clear that these orders, whatever they do or do not do, will make absolutely no contribution to solving any industrial relations problem that may confront us and will in no way help to solve the unemployment problem.
If these instruments are accepted they will come into operation on 1st December. Under Section 124 of the Act the old Industrial Court has become the Industrial Arbitration Board. Thus, when talking about the "Industrial Court" we are not talking about the old Industrial Court, which has gone for all time. Although there may be some confusion over this, we are talking about the National Industrial Relations Court, from now on referred to as the "Industrial Court" established under the Industrial Relations Act.
I must disappoint the Lord Advocate and his colleagues by telling him that we shall oppose these proposals. We shall oppose the order for a number of reasons. On the surface, it looks harmless enough. It deals with appeals arising from decisions of the industrial tribunal.
The industrial tribunals have been transformed under the Act from purely arbitral bodies with a limited jurisdictional rôle to "mini-courts", a sort of lesser breed, as it were, of the National Industrial Relations Court. As we are

all aware, the industrial tribunals were originally set up under the Industrial Training Act, 1964. Since then, the functions have been extended by subsequent Acts. That is why the order refers to appeals arising out of the Contracts of Employment Act, 1963, the Redundancy Payments Act, 1965, and the Equal Pay Act, 1970.
Added to the question of appeals arising out of these Acts are the complaints to the industrial tribunals under the Industrial Relations Act, 1971. I list some of these complaints because, although we have opposed the whole concept, they are the essential basic objections to the order.
Under Section 106 a complaint may be presented against any employer by any person regarding an unfair industrial practice under Section 5 and Section 22 of the Act. Those of us who lived night and day through the passage of the Industrial Relations Act will remember that Section 5 deals with the right of a worker to belong or not to belong to a trade union. That section embodies what in the United States would be described as a right-to-work law. We took very strong objection to that. We take strong objection to it now. The trade union movement will continue to take strong objection to this and many other parts of the Act. It protects the non-unionist.
Section 22 is slightly more congenial to us because it deals with complaints about unfair dismissal. Possibly it is the only part of the Act which in any way commends itself to us, and even that part does not go far enough because it does not give the right to reinstatement.
Under Section 107 any person can lay a complaint of unfair industrial practice under Section 66 and Section 70 of the Act, or of breach of rules. Section 66 deals with contravention of the principles set out in Section 65.
When one discusses the Act one finds that some hon. Members do not remember the details. Every section hinges upon every other section. I am not a lawyer, but I imagine that by the time I have finished with my studies of the Act I could possibly go to the Bar at any time and claim the right to be a lawyer.
We on this side of the House particularly objected to Section 65 because,


in effect, it is a direct interference with the internal affairs of the trade union movement. Under Section 65(7) it constitutes an unfair industrial practice if a trade union disciplines a member for not taking part in an industrial action which under the Act is described as not being industrial action. In other words, it is an argument as to what constitutes industrial action and what constitutes political action. This raises the whole question of workers who might be involved in industrial action which would be considered under the Act to be political action. If a union disciplines such members it will be an unfair industrial practice and a complaint can be laid under the order if the matter is proved.
Under Section 108 the Registrar can lay a complaint to the industrial tribunal under Section 81. Section 81 contains wide industrial power for the Registrar, and includes the power to look into the refusal of any trade union to accept an applicant who wishes to join a union. We consider this to be direct interference in the internal affairs of the trade union movement.
Under Section 109 the industrial tribunal can, if it finds the complaint of unfair industrial practice proved, impose two remedies. These remedies are, first, to make an order determining the rights of the relevant person and of the organisation named in the complaint and, second, to award compensation to be paid by the organisation to the relevant person. Section 117 lays down what compensation can be paid. The general principles are set out in Section 116. Under Section 110 any person can lay a complaint against an employer if certain actions have not been taken under Section 57.
In addition to the appeals arising out of the three Acts mentioned in the order—the Contracts of Employment Act, the Redundancy Payments Act, and the Equal Pay Act—the industrial tribunal can accept complaints under Sections 106 to 110—all of which are complaints concerning unfair industrial practice, which we reject.
It is for these reasons and because under Section 111 they can be transferred to the National Industrial Relations Court that we oppose the Order.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: The orders are about appeals on points of law. The orders provide that appeals should go to the Industrial Court and not to the High Court. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that such appeals should go to the High Court?

Mr. Heffer: We object to the National Industrial Relations Court. We objected to it during the passage of the Bill. We do not believe that there should be this piece of machinery to deal with industrial relations questions. We do not accept the concept of unfair industrial practice. The hon. Gentleman may not have read the order as closely as I have. It is because all these matters can be dealt with under, and arise from, the Order that we object to it. We strongly object to the National Industrial Relations Court because, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, under the Act that Court will have the powers of a High Court. This is why article 5 provides that cases pending in the High Court on 1st December 1971, will be transferred to the National Industrial Relations Court with that Court being empowered to award costs in appeals or motions.
We do not agree that the law should be introduced in this way into industrial relations. The order raises fundamental issues. In a sense, it goes to the heart of the Act. It is a demonstration of the Government's philosophy. I assure the Government—to disappoint the Lord Advocate and his right hon. Friends—that we shall continue to oppose all orders which will activate the Act. We shall pray against those against which we can pray, and we shall vote against the present order tonight.

10.51 p.m.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: I had not intended to intervene, and what I have to say now can be very brief. I understand that what we are discussing is simply where appeals on a point of law should go from the industrial tribunals. At present, they go to the High Court. Under the order they will go to the Industrial Court. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) says that he and his hon. Friends do not agree with the establishment of the Industrial Court in this context and will fight against the whole concept. But, with respect, the Court is there. It has been set up.
I wonder whether it is not a little out of order to mount a debate on whether one agrees with the setting up of the Industrial Court. We are told that the Court is in existence. The question before us is where appeals should go from the tribunals. Do they go to the new Industrial Court, which seems fairly good sense to me, or do they go to the High Court? Can we have a general debate on whether we like the whole concept of the Industrial Court? It has been set up, and it is part of our law now.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Greville Janner: The point of the order is that it is giving a new jurisdiction to a new Court. We are entitled to look both at the Court and at the jurisdiction which it is to receive. I object to the order on an additional ground beyond those taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). We must look not just at the work load which the Court will acquire as a result of the Order; we must look also at the overall work load which the Court will have.
In my view, the entire jurisdiction which the Court is to acquire will bring the law of the land into disrepute. Outside these three new Courts—I do not mind if the number is doubled and there are six of them—there will be one of the most staggering queues in the not inconsiderable history of queues outside our courts.
The Court will not just have jurisdiction over the appeals referred to in the order. Its jurisdiction will stretch over a vast area. It is to have jurisdiction over agency shop agreements and disputes arising under Section 11. It is to have jurisdiction over the continuance of agency shop agreements under Section 14, and I imagine that that will keep the three Courts busy enough. It is to have jurisdiction over breaches of collective agreements under Section 36. I doubt that that will trouble it much because I doubt that any trade union will enter into an agreement which does not contain a non-enforceability clause, and, in my opinion, any employer who does so should have his head examined. So Section 36 will probably not cause much trouble.
The Court is to have jurisdiction under Section 37 relating to procedural provi-

sions. The Secretary of State can activate that, and no doubt he will do so. It is to have jurisdiction under Section 45, about applications for recognition of sole bargaining agencies, and this, unfortunately, will take a great deal of its time. It is to have jurisdiction under Section 51, about applications to the Court with a view to withdrawal of recognition. It is to have jurisdiction under Section 54, about unfair industrial practices relating to pending questions as to recognition of sole bargaining agents. It will, alas, have jurisdiction regarding approval of the rules of trade unions. It will have jurisdiction concerning the cancellation of registration on other grounds under Section 77. As if that were not enough, it will have jurisdiction in so-called emergency procedures under Section 138, the so-called 60-day cooling-off period, and jurisdiction under Section 141 in respect of secret strike ballots.
On top of that jurisdiction, it is now to be given jurisdiction in connection with a line of appeal procedures. It is not good enough just to say, "It will have a work load of maybe 60 appeals under the Redundancy Payments Act and we do not know how many under the Industrial Relations Act." We must consider the total work the Court will be lumbered with.
The Commission on Industrial Relations will have referred to it some of that work. It will then make references and recommendations to the Court and the Court will make orders. I presume that the Court will consider what the Commission says and not just make orders automatically. I presume that people will appear before it, make applications and argue before it. I should like to know precisely how much work it is expected the Court will have. We should not simply take its appeals jurisdiction on its own but should consider the entire jurisdiction of this extraordinary new Court.
I say that with no disrespect to the judges. It is a great pity that the Court should be set up with so little thought that when these appeal jurisdictions are put before the House reference is made not to the work load as a whole but simply to this very small section of its activities.
Second, it is a mistake to transfer to a court like this—indeed, to any court


—jurisdiction which is so highly controversial. It has been said that we should have specialist tribunals for employer-employee disputes. That may be so, provided that they will do the work better and swifter and in a less controversial spirit than the courts we have. But to put three judges in charge of this Court, knowing how people feel about it and its jurisdiction, is asking for trouble, trouble which some of us who are lawyers foresee with a great deal of dismay, because we respect the law and wish it to be respected, and because we consider that this is the surest way to bring it into disrepute.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: It will be convenient if the hon. and learned Gentleman will pursue the logic of his argument for a moment. He is seeking the defeat of the order. He will agree that its defeat would not bring the Industrial Court to an end. All it would mean is that the appeals would be transferred to the ordinary courts. The hon. Gentleman argues that it is wrong to entrust the matter to judges, although the judges concerned will be specialists in this branch of the law. Why is it an effective remedy to transfer that appeals jurisdiction to judges who are not specialists in this branch?

Mr. Greville Janner: One of my great worries on the subject is that the judges will not necessarily be specialists in industrial law, in the sense that they are people with training either in that area of law or with understanding of how the people concerned consider the matters with which they are involved. Industrial disputes cannot be dealt with purely on the basis of a so-called legal framework. It must be understood that the Court is dealing with people on the shop floor, and the judges who deal with them need not merely a training in the law but an understanding of those people.

Mr. Awdry: The hon. and learned Gentleman has missed the point. If he succeeds in defeating the order, all the appeals go to this High Court. Why is it better that they should go to the High Court than to the new Industrial Court?

Mr. Greville Janner: Because I consider that the Industrial Court is going to be a disaster. I prefer the law to remain at least in good repute in part of

the area in which it is administered. I think that this Court is unfair to the judges who will have to deal with it, to the litigants who will appear before it, and that it is wrong that this transfer should be achieved.
It is said that there are to be the same facilities for legal aid before this Court as before any other court. That is the trouble. The legal aid facilities available in courts in general are not good enough. They are alright if one has nothing, but they are useless for the average person earning an ordinary sort of living in factory, office or anywhere else. He cannot avail himself of these facilities in the ordinary courts and, therefore, cannot necessarily get representation and justice, and he will not be able to make use of them in this new appeal Court, which will be dealing with one of the most involved and difficult Statutes in the history of our time. These are bad orders and they will be opposed.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Alex Eadie: The right hon. and learned Gentleman opened this debate with moderation and no one could take offence at what he said. But the question of the Industrial Relations Act, the industrial relations tribunals and the Industrial Court is tainted in this House, as it is to the trade unionists outside. The right hon. and learned Gentleman can talk as much as he likes about the law but the fact remains, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner) pointed out, that law is in disrepute.
We often say that our people are law-abiding, and so they are if they have respect for the law. What right hon. and hon. Members opposite do not seem to understand is that the vast mass of trade unionists have no respect for the propositions put forward in the Government's industrial relations law. The debate about the Act rages on. As we have said all along, it will create a lawyer's paradise but the ordinary people will suffer. We are at least to have one growth industry under this Government—for the lawyers through the implementation of the industrial relations legislation.
People outside may misunderstand the situation. Many of them will regard it as provocative that Parliament should be


discussing this matter when there is such heavy unemployment in the country. Despite all the niceties we hear from hon. Members opposite, people believe that the Act was not discussed properly in the House because of the Guillotine. Trade unionists take great exception to the way in which the Government have handled this issue, and indeed the method has been harmful not only to Parliament but to democracy itself.
The miners are holding a ballot on whether to have a strike. Rightly or wrongly, they will regard the propositions in these orders as provocative. When people have no respect for law, a dangerous situation arises. The danger of this Government is that they are bringing not only the law but also democracy into disrepute. I hope that we shall go into the Lobby to demonstrate our opposition to both the orders and the Government.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme: The whole concept of the Industrial Court flies in the face of the Donovan Report, which recommended that industrial disputes should not be settled in courts of law, the inference being—and I believe it to betrue—that learned High Court judges, for all their great expertise in the law and its interpretation, do not necessarily know a great deal about industrial relations.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I want to put the same point to the hon. Member which I unsuccessfully put to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner).

Mr. Greville Janner: You will get the same answer.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I hope it will be a better answer. It was the answer which was unsuccessful, not the question. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has played a much more prominent part in our debates than the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-West and, therefore, I am tempted to see whether I get a more rational answer from a non-legal Member. He says he does not want these issues to go to judges. But the effect of defeating the order will be that they will go either to the Court of Appeal or to the High Court on a

case stated. That means going to judges and it therefore seems a little illogical for the hon. Member to wish to defeat the order.

Mr. Orme: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is, as usual, extremely subtle and clever in his questioning. What he says is quite right. If we leave the Industrial Relations Act as it now is and do not approve these orders, these matters will go to the equivalent High Court. But the whole basis of the Act, with its legal implications, is wrong. We listen to the right hon. and learned Gentleman with great respect on matters of law. But actions under certain Acts are to be transferred to this court—the Contracts of Employment Act, the Redundancy Payments Act, and the Equal Pay Act.
At present proceedings under these Acts have to go occasionally to a court of law to be adjudicated. But now they will be transferred into a highly political court for legal interpretation. The Industrial Court will be manned by High Court judges. It will have equivalent status to the normal High Court. But the assessors who will sit in the court with the judges will be appointed by the Government and will not be representative of industry as a whole.
Both the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General, the evil genius behind the Act, know that the trade unions will not co-operate in operating the Act because they believe it to be thoroughly bad. I put it to the lawyers here that if a large section of the community is opposed to a law, that law is brought into disrepute. We all know of laws like this which have had to be changed. In a democracy, unlike a totalitarian State, if the people do not support a law, that law is ignored. There are examples in the driving laws which are ignored because they do not carry the support of the vast majority.
Cases will be channelled to the Industrial Relations Court not merely from the Redundancy Payments Acts or the Equal Pay Act, but from the Industrial Relations Act, highly controversial cases. The controversy will arise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, when there are cases arising from Section 5 of the Industrial Relations Act, issues such as agency shops and other matters coming straight from


the shop floor to be adjudicated upon by people without practical experience of these matters and assisted by assessors who will not have been chosen with a view to balancing the two sides of industry.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: My hon. Friend has much more experience than I have of industrial relations. Would he say what would be the likely reaction of shop stewards and ordinary trade unionists to the assessors? What sort of attitude would they have to the people who would be, as it were, prompting the judges?

Mr. Orme: They will simply label them nominees of the Government with no independent standing.
Already working-class people are not particularly enamoured, rightly or wrongly, of the way in which the law courts are run. They feel that the background of a judge may not make him sympathetic to their views. They are sometimes right, sometimes wrong. But this Industrial Relations Court will start damned from the beginning and without a vestige of independence.

Mr. Anthony Fell: I have always thought that the hon. Member of all people had been brought up to believe in democracy—that that was something which he had been preaching all his life. Here is an Act democratically passed by Parliament and he and his friends are refusing to allow it to work, on his own admission. He talks of an Act being abhored by all trade unionists. I have not received one letter about it.

Mr. Orme: When the Act starts to operate, the hon. Gentleman may find that things change.
I say without any cant or hypocrisy that I believe in democracy, and because I believe in the democratic State and the democratic society and that one has to uphold the law, I oppose the Act. It is not we who are bringing the law into disrepute; it is the Act.

Mr. Fell: The hon. Gentleman talks of supporting the law of the land, but he and his friends are trying to undermine a law which has been democratically passed by the House.

Mr. Orme: I will leave the House to judge the very clear differences which exist. We seem to be back on the

familiar treadmill and we shall have many more late evenings. This is the first of many bits of paper. I have made the point about what should go in its place. We are back to first principles. This is built on a foundation which will not last and therefore we must oppose it and subsequent orders.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: I want to put two points to the Solicitor-General. Will he confirm that there have been only three commencement orders so far and that none of the grounds of complaint which could activate the procedures under paragraph 3(d) of the order has yet been activated? If he confirms that, may I ask when these parts are to be activated. I have in mind Sections 5, 22, 57, 65 and 70 and the others mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).
The Lord Advocate has not explained to my satisfaction why it is that the Government have seen fit to redistribute the appellate jurisdiction of the industrial tribunals between these different Statutes. Why is it that under the Industrial Training Act, 1964, the Docks and Harbours Act, 1966, and the Selective Employment Payments Act, 1966, the ordinary courts are to be the appropriate appellate jurisdiction, when under the measures listed in paragraph 3(d) the Industrial Court is to be the appropriate jurisdiction? This seems strange because I would have thought that under paragraph 3(d) complaints originating under Section 5 or Section 22 of the Industrial Relations Act will be hotly disputed matters of fact which are more likely to be disputed on appeal than matters arising under the Industrial Training Act, the Docks and Harbours Act and the Selective Employment Payments Act. Why are the orders limited to appeals on points of law?
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) is hoping to say something about legal aid and I will simply express my regret that we have no order before us applying legal aid to the industrial tribunals.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: These orders and regulations have been taken together but there is a distinction on this side of the House in our approach


to the orders on which the main debate has centered and the legal aid regulations. We said that if this court were set up, it was essential that legal aid be provided. We are glad that on this question sound advice has been taken.
There are three matters arising out of the regulations. As I understand the schedule setting out the practice of the court, paragraph 21 provides for a person who appears before it to be represented, not only by counsel, solicitor or trade union but also by any other person whom he wishes to help him. I am not altogether clear what that means. Can the Solicitor-General tell us whether, if payment is involved, it will fall within these regulations?
Secondly, the Lord Advocate has drawn attention to paragraph 24 of the schedule, which provides that the court is not to have power to grant costs against a party except in certain specific circumstances. Will that power to grant costs in those circumstances override the normal rules of legal aid, under which the court will not normally award costs against a legally-aided party, at any rate above the extent of his contribution?
Finally, in reply to my question, the right hon. and learned Gentleman told the House that the anticipation—he admitted that it was speculation—was that the annual cost of legal aid in the court would be £50,000. Having heard what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to say and what my hon. Friends have said, I cannot begin to conceive how any estimate at all—certainly an annual estimate—can be made. I hope that the learned Solicitor-General will be able to give us a better explanation of that figure than his right hon. and learned Friend was able to give.

11.21 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I should like to begin by replying to the characteristically penetrating and detailed points put by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) in his remarks—so far as I follow them. First, he asked me whether representation by any other person—if that other person were paid—will entitle legal aid to be granted in respect of such other person. I do not think so, because

the Legal Aid and Advice Act extends only to lawyers on the panels of one kind or another.
The second question was whether the rule limiting the power to award costs vested in the Industrial Court would override the normal limitation of the likelihood of costs being awarded against a legally-aided person. As I see it, it would work in the opposite direction. The court would make an order for costs, in any event, only if it were satisfied that the proceedings were either frivolous or vexatious, and would then go on to apply the test whether it should make an order against a legally-aided person.
On the hon. and learned Member's third question, as to the accuracy of the estimate of the cost of legal aid being granted in the Industrial Court, the hon. and learned Gentleman fairly said that it is not possible to have great confidence in the certainty and accuracy of the estimate of £50,000. He will know that in any comparable jurisdiction introduced by successive Governments it has proved very difficult to estimate what the case load—and in particular the legal aid case load—of any new legal jurisdiction would be. There were wildly differing estimates in respect of the case load of the rent tribunals and rent assessment officers under the Rent Act, 1965 and, similarly, the Race Relations Act, 1968, and it must be acknowledged that the estimate given by the Lord Advocate is the first target figure, and is dependent on whether one accepts the views of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who suggests that the court will be largely disregarded, or of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner), who appeared to paint an extravagant picture of the extent to which the court will be used. Whichever view one takes, the estimate will vary one way or the other.
I confess that it is odd to see the wildly different postures adopted by hon. Members opposite to this package of instruments. We had the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) presenting his familiar denunciation of the lawyers' paradise represented—he said—by this legislation, and then the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich and several of his colleagues stressing the importance of legal aid being made available—

Mr. Rose: There is nothing inconsistent about that.

The Solicitor-General: Indeed there is, I shall analyse the position, but before doing so I want to deal with the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray). The Sections covered by the list which he gave—Sections 5, 20, 65, 67 and so on—are not to be activated until Commencement Order No. 4, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to lay before the House some time in the early part of the New Year. That is the specific answer to that point.
Coming to the central question of principle, we are dealing with the establishment of an appeal pattern for the most important parts of the Industrial Relations Act—appeals arising under the contracts of Employment Act, the Redundancy Payments Act, and, particularly, the unfair dismissal provisions. It cannot be argued at one and the same time by hon. Gentlemen opposite that this is part of the sinister by-product of a kind of evil genius, to borrow the phrase of the hon. Member for Salford, West. We are propounding the remedies for actual grievances of individual workpeople in all parts of industry. We are putting forward a framework designed to deal with those grievances. In the second group of orders we are providing legal aid for appeals. I suggest that that makes a perfectly sensible balanced package.
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith expressed a modest note of regret that legal aid was not available in the industrial tribunals. He knows that that was considered by the Legal Aid Advisory Committee in 1968 and again in its report just out. It maintained its attitude that the extension of legal aid to tribunals, including the industrial tribunals, was not justified, certainly in advance of the results of the research being undertaken by the Nuffield Foundation and other organisations.
Its view has been sustained by the President of the Industrial Tribunals who spoke not long back about the desirability of maintaining the informality of proceedings in the industrial tribunals. He said that, although he would not look forward to legal aid and extended

representation by lawyers in the industrial tribunals, he thought that it would be advantageous if litigants could have the benefit of legal advice in the preparation of their cases. That is one of the many reasons for the Government announcing that it is their intention to introduce the £25 scheme to extend the availability of legal advice in that way. Pending any advice by the Legal Aid Advisory Committee, I think that that represents the right balance to maintain. I suggest that we have got our proposals correct concerning legal aid.
I come back to the subjects with which the first group of orders deals and to what was said by the hon. Member for Walton. By and large, the hon. Gentleman gave an accurate account of the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act in respect of which appeals will go to the Industrial Court as a result of the first two orders.
Listening to the hon. Gentleman, I could not help thinking that if, ten years hence, somebody reading his accurate analysis of the provisions which we were establishing and the appeal machinery which we were proposing were able to hear the tone of voice in which he had been speaking, the kind of sustained, implied acceptance, as though the entire world must accept the monstrosity of what we were putting forward, he would say: "Yes, I quite see. That makes absolute sense. It is entirely right that machinery for appeal against an employer's refusal to allow a man to belong to a trade union should be provided and that it should go to an industrially sophisticated court." He might say, as the hon. Member for Walton said, "It is right that an appeal procedure against unfair dismissal should be provided. It is astonishing that it has not been provided before. It is entirely right that complaints against trade unions for failing to conform with the rules of natural justice, the trade union member's bill of rights, should be provided for in this way."
He would applaud the accuracy of the hon. Gentleman's summary of what we are dealing with and wonder only at the tone of voice, so far as it could be defined from the musty columns of HANSARD ten years hence, and look back in astonishment that he should have sought to address the matter in this way.
I come now to the way in which the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-West dealt with the matter. He painted a picture of queues of litigants outside the industrial tribunals and the Industrial Relations Court. It may be that some of these litigants—not many—will be concerned with unfair industrial practices arising out of industrial action. The great majority of these litigants will be individual work people complaining about harsh treatment at the hands of large organisations, be they employers or trade unions. In so far as there are many of them coming to these tribunals, and to the Industrial Court, that will be a measure of the need that has for so long been un-met, short of the Industrial Relations Act. I think that the hon. Gentleman greatly overestimates the extent to which they will appear before the court, because he overlooks the extent to which, built into the entire legislation, there is provision for conciliation and resolution of disputes without the need for litigation.
To come to the point on which the hon. Member for Salford, West concentrated his attack, and on which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) pressed two hon. Gentlemen opposite, what is wrong about the substantive proposals in the first two orders for the machinery for the resolution of disputes in relation to industrial relations? Is it not right that they should be heard by a specially designed court, representative of people in industry with industrial experience, rather than by ordinary lawyers?
The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) has played a leading part in the debates in opposition to the Act, as has his colleague the hon. Member for Salford, West, but they must accept to some extent the responsibility for having created amongst the ranks of their colleagues the impression that this court, as one of them put it, will be thoroughly bad. The court is designed to meet the analysis of many people who have looked at this kind of problem and have said that this is the kind of court that ought to be established.
If one looks at the comments made by some of the most articulate and consistent critics of the Industrial Relations Act who have studied the existing appeals

procedure, one finds positive support for this kind of change. Professor Wedderburn, an old friend and doughty opponent of mine, who has not been conspicuous for his enthusiasm over the Industrial Relations Act, said in his book "Employment Grievances and Disputes Procedures in Britain" that appeals to ordinary courts in these matters tend to destroy the flexibility and discretion, which is one of the reasons for adding wing men to the chairmen of industrial tribunals allowing appeals to the ordinary courts as characterised by him as a curious mistake, and the same kind of view is expressed by Dr. Geoffrey Clark in his publication "Remedies for Unjust Dismissal", and by Dr. Rideout who wrote about this in current legal problems in 1969. They all criticised appeals to ordinary judges in ordinary courts, and all commended this kind of change.

Mr. Rose: Is not the Solicitor-General misrepresenting Professor Wedderburn? He knows that Professor Wedderburn not only opposed appeals to ordinary courts but proposed wing men purely as a substitute for something better. The Solicitor-General knows that if Professer Wedderburn were here he would dismiss this proposal out of hand. People versed in industrial arbitration are far better equipped to deal with this sort of matter than are judges with a training which does not equip them to know what happens on the factory floor. Will the Solicitor-General please not quote Professor Wedderburn in support of something which he knows the professor opposed?

The Solicitor-General: I am not misrepresenting Professor Wedderburn. He takes the view that, so far as possible, lawyers should remain off the industrial scene. I do not want to do him any discredit in that respect, but he says that in so far as appeals exist under this kind of legislation, they should go not to the ordinary judges but to a more industrially sophisticated court, including wing men of the kind he describes.
He is supported by other critics. Dr. Geoffrey Clark, a left-wing critic of this legislation, and opposed to it in principle, makes the same point. And so does Dr. Rideout. What do hon. Gentlemen opposite want? Do they want appeals to go to the ordinary judges, or to this court which is more attuned and more specifically designed to hear such


appeals? Of course it is a matter for regret that the real grievances of really effective work people will not yet be heard by a court which is as fully and as wholly representative of both sides of industry as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would wish. It is not the Government, however, who are to blame for that. It is a great tragedy that the people, representative of both sides of industry, who would be willing to show a real willingness to serve are still deterred from coming forward to take the places which remain vacant for them on the National Industrial Relations Court.

The court will achieve its purpose, to the greater advantage of people on both sides of industry, and it will achieve it the more effectively and the more readily, as soon as passions, provoked beyond reason by the debate on the legislation, have been allowed to die and as soon as the places which stand available for representatives of the trade union movement are filled, as they should be in the interests of that movement and of the members of that movement.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 216.

Division No.15.]
AYES
[11.36 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Lane, David


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fowler, Norman
Le Marchant, Spencer


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fox, Marcus
Longden, Gilbert


Astor, John
Fry, Peter
Loveridge, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
MacArthur, Ian


Awdry, Daniel
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
McCrindle, R. A.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Goodhart, Philip
McLaren, Martin


Balniel, Lord
Goodhew, Victor
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Batsford, Brian
Gower, Raymond
McMaster, Stanley


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Gray, Hamish
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Green, Alan
Madel, David


Benyon, W.
Grieve, Percy
Mather, Carol


Biffen, John
Grylls, Michael
Mawby, Ray


Biggs-Davison, John
Gummer, Selwyn
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Blaker, Peter
Gurden, Harold
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Boscawen, Robert
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Miscampbell, Norman


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Bowden, Andrew
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Haselhurst, Alan
Monte, Roger


Bray, Ronald
Hastings, Stephen
Molyneaux, James


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Havers, Michael
Money, Ernie


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hawkins, Paul
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Hayhoe, Barney
Monro, Hector



Hicks, Robert
Montgomery, Fergus


Burden, F. A.
Higgins, Terence L.
More, Jasper


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hiley, Joseph
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Carlisle, Mark
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Morrison, Charles


Chapman, Sydney
Holland, Philip
Mudd, David


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Holt, Miss Mary
Murton, Oscar


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hooson, Emlyn
Neave, Airey


Churchill, W. S.
Hornby, Richard
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Clegg, Walter
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Normanton, Tom


Cockeram, Eric
Howell, David (Guildford)
Nott, John


Cooke, Robert
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Onslow, Cranley


Coombs, Derek
Hunt, John
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Cooper, A. E.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Osborn, John


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Iremonger, T. L.
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Cormack, Patrick
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Critchley, Julian
James, David
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Crouch, David
Jessel, Toby
Parkinson, Cecil


Crowder, F. P.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Percival, Ian


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Jopling, Michael
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pink, R. Bonner


Dean, Paul
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Powell, Rt. Ho. J. Enoch


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kershaw, Anthony
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kilfedder, James
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Dykes, Hugh
Kimball, Marcus
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Eden, Sir John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Raison, Timothy


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Kinsey, J. R.
Redmond, Robert


Eyre, Reginald
Kirk, Peter
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Farr, John
Kitson, Timothy
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Fell, Anthony
Knox, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lambton, Antony
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas




Ridsdale, Julian
Steel, David
Waddington, David


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Stokes, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Rost, Peter
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Wall, Patrick


Russell, Sir Ronald
Sutcliffe, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Tapsell, Peter
Weatherill, Bernard


Scott, Nicholas
Tsylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Scott-Hopkins, James
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Sharples, Richard
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; whitby)
Tebbit, Norman
Wilkinson, John


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Winterton, Nicholas


Simeons, Charles
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Sinclair, Sir George
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Worsley, Marcus


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Soref, Harold
Trew, Peter
Younger, Hn. George


Speed, Keith
Tugendhat, Christopher



Spence, John
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Sproat, Iain
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mr. Hugh Rossi and


Stainton, Keith
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Mr. Tim Fortescue.


Stanbrook, Ivor
Vickers, Dame Joan





NOES


Allaun, Frank, (Salford, E.)
Ford, Ben
McCartney, Hugh


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Forrester, John
McElhone, Frank


Ashley, Jack
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McGuire, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackenzie, Gregor


Atkinson, Norman
Garrett, W. E.
Hackie, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mackintosh, John P.


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Golding, John
Maclennan, Robert


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Gourley, Harry
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Bishop, E. S.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Booth, Albert
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Bradley, Tom
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Marks, Kenneth


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-up on-Tyne, W.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marquand, David


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Marsden, F.


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hardy, Peter
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Buchan, Norman
Harper, Joseph
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Meacher, Michael


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Carmichael, Neil
Hattersley, Roy
Mendelson, John


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Millan, Bruce


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Heffer, Eric S.
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Horan, John
Milne, Edward


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Molloy, William


Cohen, Stanley
Huckfield, Leslie
Morgan, Elysian (Cardiganshire)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Morris Charles R. (Openshaw)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Moyle, Roland


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hunter, Adam
Murray, Ronald King


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Janner, Greville
Oakes, Gordon


Davidson, Arthur
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Ogden, Eric


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
O'Halloran, Michael


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
O'Malley, Brian


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
John, Brynmor
Orme, Stanley


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Barry (Flint. E.)
Palmer, Arthur


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Dempsey, James
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Doig, Peter
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Pearl, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dormand, J. D.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Pendry, Tom


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Judd, Frank
Pentland, Norman


Dribera, Tom
Kaufman, Gerald
Perry, Ernest G.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kerr, Russell
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Dunn, James A.
Kinnock, Neil
Prescott, John


Dunnett, Jack
Lambie, David
Price, William (Rugby)


Eadie, Alex
Lamond, James
Probert, Arthur


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Latham, Arthur
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Ellis, Tom
Lawson, George
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


English, Michael
Leadbitter, Ted
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Evans, Fred
Leonard, Dick
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Ewing, Harry
Lestor, Miss Jean
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rodgers, William (Stockton on-Tees)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Lomas, Kenneth
Roper, John


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rose, Paul B.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Ross, Rt. Hn. Willem (Kilmarnock)


Foley, Maurice
McBride, Neil
Sandelson, Neville


Foot, Michael
McCann, John
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)







Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Strang, Gavin
Wellbeloved, James


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Swain, Thomas
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Taverne, Dick
Whitehead, Phillip


Sillars, James
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Whitlock, William


Silverman, Julius
Tinn, James
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Skinner, Dennis
Torney, Tom
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Small, William
Tuck, Raphael
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Urwln, T. W.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Spearing, Nigel
Varley, Eric G.
Woof, Robert


Spriggs, Leslie
Wainwright, Edwin



Stallard, A. W.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Wallace, George
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Watkins, David
Mr. William Hamling.


Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Resolved,
That the Industrial Court (Appeals) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 3rd November, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Industrial Court (Appeals) (Scotland) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 3rd November, be approved.—[The Lord Advocate.]

Resolved,
That the Legal Aid (Extension of Proceedings) Regulations 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd November, be approved.—[The Lord Advocate.]

Resolved,
That the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Extension of Proceedings) (No. 2) Regulations 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd November, be approved.—[The Lord Advocate.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Rossi.]

EMPLOYMENT (LINCOLN)

11.48 p.m.

Mr. Dick Taverne: As I am returning to the subject of unemployment in Lincoln, perhaps I should begin by removing a misapprehension. It may seem that this Adjournment is a device to have a personal say on an issue which the House was discussing all afternoon and evening. I assure hon. Members that it is quite accidental, though fortunate, that I am raising this subject tonight.
Perhaps I should also apologise at the outset for returning to a matter which I raised as recently as 7th April of this year. It may seem soon to return to this topic, and I will not go over the ground again. In any event, the Minister will be well aware of the points I raised then with his colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

But the situation has developed since 7th April last and has changed considerably for the worse.
Earlier in the year I requested assisted status for Lincoln. At that stage our unemployment rate was 6·6 per cent. and the Minister pointed out that in terms of full-time unemployed, it was only 4·3 per cent., which did not justify special assistance. He went on to say that Lincoln was attractively situated and was not isolated like, for example, North Humberside. He added that while he would keep the position under review, the long-term outlook for Lincoln was good. I did not consider his answer satisfactory on that ocasion and it has been overtaken by events since that date.
First, the total figures for unemployment in Lincoln have now risen to some 7·8 per cent. at the last count, compared with 6·6 per cent. then. More disturbingly, there has also been a steady rise in the number of wholly unemployed. There has seemed to be an inexorable succession of redundancies. If one counts the partly unemployed as equivalent perhaps to one-fifth of the wholly unemployed—which is in some ways looking at it too favourably—the total figure for wholly unemployed would be well over 6 per cent. and, what is more, hundreds of redundancies have been announced, since the last count was taken, at the firm of Clayton Dewandre, which are not included in the figure.
I realise that our position in Lincoln is unfortunately not unique, and this has been shown by today's debate. But it is and remains worse than many areas which get assistance, and our relative position worsens all the time as further measures are announced which go only to assisted areas.
I want to take up the second and third points of the Minister's reply on that day,


about our attractive location and the long-term prospects. If they were true when the Minister spoke in April, they are not points which can be considered valid at present. Our special position has now, for the first time, been recognised by the East Midlands Economic Advisory Council. The Chairman of the Council, the Duke of Rutland, after a recent visit to Lincoln wrote to the Secretary of State for the Environment and made a number of observations.
Amongst other things, the Chairman said that some middle-sized communities in the East Midlands area were particularly vulnerable. He referred to those which were dependent on heavy engineering, which may not need as much manpower in the future as hitherto, and areas which need light industries or service and distribution industries. He specifically stated that one of the areas where the stresses were highest was Lincoln, an area with longer-term worries which needed modernisation of the communications pattern. Even if its industries recovered, in Lincoln there might still be a decline in the manpower employed compared with former times.
I am delighted that the Chairman of the East Midlands Council has recognised officially the problems I have so often stressed to the Government. I used to think that we had a great deal to gain in the longer term and I shared in the longer-term optimism because of the likely development of Humberside and the building of Humber Bridge. But now the strategic road plans announced a few months ago have left out Lincoln in the period before 1980. The motorways leading from the Humberside area go westward towards the A.1. There is to be no improvement before that date of roads southward to Lincoln or, for that matter, from Lincoln to Newark. There is not to be a by-pass round Lincoln.
What will happen is that traffic will go down the A.15, and the roads will not be capable of dealing with the traffic. The congestion, especially inside Lincoln, will be appalling, and the attraction of Lincoln as a future centre for industry will be that much less. The needs of a modern communications pattern referred to by the Chairman of the East Midlands Council will not be met.
The gravest disquiet is also felt in Lincoln about the new reorganisation of local government. A large number of jobs which would otherwise have come to Lincoln will now no longer be there. This is a matter on which I am pursuing further consultations, because one of the greatest causes of resentment arising on the Government's announcement was the fact that no consultations took place when the alteration from the White Paper was made.
Returning to the question of Lincoln's employment needs, it has been announced by the Government that £162 million will be available for the improvement of the infrastructure in the development and the intermediate areas. Lincoln is in neither category. Our relative position will therefore decline. I ask the Minister to reconsider our request for intermediate status in the light of the further developments. I ask him particularly to consider this because of the increased relative discrimination against Lincoln arising from the measures of special assistance to the assisted areas. I ask for this because I hope that it will lead the Government to look again at the question of road development, which is of the greatest importance to Lincoln's long-term needs. I ask for it also so that the Department of Trade and Industry will recognise, as the East Midlands Economic Advisory Council clearly thinks that it should recognise, that Lincoln is an area to which new industry should be encouraged to go.
If activity picks up in the country generally, I fear that, although many of our firms will recover, the technological developments which have taken place will still leave us with a much higher rate unemployment than we had before.
The second request I make of the Government is for one particular form of assistance additional to what I have already mentioned and which I believe they cannot in all justice refuse. In a letter I received this morning from the Department of the Environment in answer to a letter I wrote on 21st October about the employment situation I was told that Lincoln would not be considered as one of the areas for the special measures of public works. The letter said that, apart from the assisted areas where the special measures are to be concentrated,
other areas will benefit from the Government's continuing programmes designed to


improve infrastructure over the country as a whole, including the road programme, housing improvements and the replacement of out-of-date primary schools.
I observe in passing that the road programme improvements do not apply to us.
The letter continues:
But most public works of the kind which can be started quickly depend to a large extent on local authorities' own initiative. You may like to suggest to the City Council that they should check to see whether there are any projects which are ready or nearly ready to be begun and, if these qualify for Government grant, check with the East Midlands Regional Director the position over the availability of grant.
I received that letter this morning and I at once checked with the Corporation. There is one development which is awaiting a decision. That is the Yarborough School Sports Complex. This is still seen by the Council as a major priority. We would appreciate help with this within the terms of the Minister's letter. I do not expect an answer from the Minister on this question, because it is obviously a matter on which he will have to consult his colleagues, but I ask him to bear it in mind. If he will confirm the letter's statement that the Government are willing to consider grants for schemes not in assisted areas, I shall ask the City Council to put up the projects that would help to provide some of the employment that we need. I hope that the Government will use their influence with the East Midlands Regional Director to see that grants are made available in such cases.
Lincoln desperately needs some boost. It was a prosperous city but its prosperity has gone for over 2,000 of its workers and their families. Morale is low, and many people face a bleak Christmas. There are widespread fears that we shall become a ghost town, and that, except for one or two of the remaining firms, we shall be a city with a proud past and a very limited future. It will be no benefit to the nation if such a large proportion of our highly skilled labour force is left frustrated and unused.

11.59 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): I wish to respond in kind, Mr. Deputy Speaker—one is glad to have the opportunity to address you as such, Mr. Mallalieu—to the moderate and, if I may say so, worthwhile speech of the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne). As

he said, he raised this issue last April, and I think it typical of the assiduity with which he represents his constituents that he has brought the matter forward again. Having been lucky enough to gain a place in the ballot for Adjournment debates, he has tonight showed his very real concern about the employment situation in Lincoln, as any good Member of Parliament in such circumstances should do.
The hon. and learned Gentleman argues that unemployment is high and rising, and that Lincoln is probably too dependent on engineering, a point which he has made before, and that it should, therefore, have assisted area status.
The level of unemployment and of short-time working in the Lincoln area is certainly disquieting, and I hope that the House will appreciate that what I have to say is in no way an attempt to belittle the very real problems and difficulties which face the people of Lincoln, especially those who are out of work or losing time, or those who may be about to lose their jobs through redundancies.
Enough has been said already at today's sitting to make absolutely clear that the Government mean to bring unemployment down from its present unacceptably high level over the whole country, and that they have already brought into play a great number of measures to speed up the national economy. When these measures have had time to take effect, they will give a welcome boost to employment.
In all fairness to the hon. and learned Gentleman and his constituents, I must say that the best prospect for Lincoln lies in a revival of the national economy. Many of the firms in the city have been in difficulty because of slack demand in the industries which they supply, such as the motor and aircraft industries, construction and general engineering. While it would be entirely wrong to expect rapid results, the steps which we have taken, for example, tax reductions to help the construction industry, the motor industry, Rolls-Royce and other industries, should all eventually bring direct or indirect benefits to the industries on which Lincoln depends.
Certainly, the unemployment situation in Lincoln now is far from satisfactory, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said.


It is true that the rate of unemployment is higher than it was when he last had an Adjournment debate on the subject. The rate is now 7·8 per cent., compared with 6·6 per cent. in March. But unemployment has, alas, risen in the country as a whole. I must stress, also, that almost one-third of the 4,200 people included in this month's count in Lincoln were not wholly unemployed but were on short time.
Moreover, there are signs that the situation may be a little better than it was last month. Unemployment has dropped from 8 per cent. to 7·8 per cent., a small but none the less welcome improvement, and the number of outstanding vacancies has risen. Since our last debate, the Lincoln firm which supplies Rolls-Royce, which had 700 workers on a four-day week, has now resumed full-time working.
On the question of Lincoln's dependence on engineering, it is true that a fairly large proportion of Lincoln's working population is in mechanical and electrical engineering and vehicles. The proportion is nearly one in four. Engineering naturally accounts for an even bigger share of those employed in manufacturing industries. But this does not necessarily mean that the economy of Lincoln is too narrowly or precariously based. Engineering covers a very wide variety of activities and products, and a wide variety of firms serving other industries. This variety has usually provided some protection for Lincoln from a setback in any one branch of engineering. It must be admitted, however, that when the level of demand is low over the whole economy, having a variety of industry is not so much of a protection. Normally, too, engineering has been one of Britain's biggest growth sectors. I am convinced that we shall return to that situation before long.
While the industrial structure of Lincoln may not have as much variety as the hon. and learned Gentleman and many others would like—and the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to the need for light industry—at least it is not based on a chronically declining industry, as are so many less fortunate parts of the country. This factor is the crux of the third and very important

matter the hon. and learned Gentleman put to us tonight, his renewed demand for assisted area status for Lincoln. Although the rate of unemployment is at present high in Lincoln, that is a reflection of the state of the general economy. It is not the result of the long-term decay and decline of a basic industry, and we are all glad that it is not.
The level of unemployment may be one criterion for assisted area status, but another important factor is whether the area faces problems of serious structural unemployment. I do not think that that is the situation in Lincoln. The unemployment problem there is recessional, and we can reasonably expect it to be very largely mitigated once the general economy picks up again.
As I have pointed out, one-third of Lincoln's unemployment is because of short-time. The number of people wholly unemployed is below 3,000. This does not approach the numbers unemployed in the great majority of intermediate areas, let alone the development areas. In October the Yorkshire coalfield intermediate area, as one example, had 24,000 wholly unemployed and the North Humberside intermediate area had nearly 10,000.
Lincoln, moreover, is attractively located, with a highly skilled labour force, and does not face the widespread dereliction of the coalfield or the comparative isolation of North Humberside. Nor, despite its difficulties over roads and communications, does its face, as do, for example, Edinburgh, Okehampton and Tavistock, the additional disadvantage of close proximity to development areas—and we know what competition that can bring about.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has the responsibility for deciding which parts of the country shall have assisted area status, will certainly take note of what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about the claims of Lincoln and will keep the situation under review. That is not an empty promise. He has, however, to bear in mind the prior claims of those badly hit parts of the country with high chronic unemployment accompanied by serious environmental difficulties. At a time when the supply of mobile industry is very limited, the needs


of these areas must come first. But I shall draw to my right hon. Friend's attention what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, and the remarks made by the Chairman of the East Midlands Council.
What I have said does not mean that either my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment are unsympathetic towards Lincoln. The policy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has been to look sympathetically at applications for industrial development certificates in respect of expansion by local firms, and I understand that since 1965 no applications for industrial development certificates for Lincoln have been refused. Indeed, since January, 1967, I understand, 36 such certificates have been issued, giving an estimated additional employment figure of about 1,250.
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for drawing our attention to the situation in Lincoln. I assure him we are very much aware of the redundancies which have taken place there this year and the short-time working which is going on. But he will at least admit that two main things have emerged from our debate earlier today. First, there are many parts of the country which have a much higher unemployment rate, both in numbers and percentages, than Lincoln, and with long-term problems of structural unemployment which the regional policies of any Government can solve only over a long period of time and by giving priority to those areas.
Secondly, it has been made clear that the Government recognised early that a great deal of slack had developed in the economy, and over the past twelve months have introduced a massive series of measures to absorb the spare capacity and reduce unemployment. Among these measures were tax reductions, direct aid and public spending which will help,

amongst others, the industries on which Lincoln is particularly dependent, such as motors, the aircraft industry and construction, The effects of these measures are bound to take time to work through, but when they do we shall, I am sure, see not only a return to former prosperity but an advance to higher levels of prosperity, based on the firm foundation which the Government are determined to provide.
I have taken due note of the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments on the letter he received from the Department of the Environment. He was courteous enough to supply me with a copy just before we began the debate. This is the first time I have had the information. I will consult my colleagues in that Department on the points he raised and see that he gets a full answer. Knowing him as I do, I am sure that he will take the initiative which has been suggested in that letter. He has already given an indication that he has done something about it.
The hon. and learned Gentleman rightly referred to the fact that Lincoln has in the past been a prosperous town, and he wants it to remain so. So do we. I think that the prosperity of Lincoln and future employment there are naturally closely bound up with the prosperity of the country as a whole. Whilst I cannot hold out the prospect of special assistance for Lincoln—it would be wrong of me to do so—I am certain that the city will share fully in the national recovery. We shall continue to watch the situation there and so will the Department of Trade and Industry. We are grateful to him for bringing to our attention the various points he raised, which we shall note, and I am confident that in due course he will have no further cause for Adjournment debates on this subject.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.